Simulacre de procès et torture à Nuremberg

"I do feel that the trial of officers and even civilian officials was the most unfortunate and unjustified violation of international law. I'm afraid our administration allowed itself to be led on by the Soviet desire for vengence and I'm sure we will both have cause to regret our participation, both because it was inconsistent with our previous more generous and more gentlemanly attitude, and because it gave a precedent for the victor to revenge himself on individuals after any future war. Such action in violation of international law and purely to vent one's anger on individuals acting under orders is sure to come back and plague us in the future".

"The war crimes trials held in the heat of hatred fresh in the minds of judges could not have been fair and impartial and therefore should not have been held at all. No military officiers carrying out orders of their government had any discretion and in no case should have been punished. Actual crimes should have been handled out by their own government and not by enemy governments."

Admiral Thomas C. Kinkade:

"The Nuremberg trials conducted by a so-called international military court - which it was not - were a travesty of legality and violated the basic principles of justice, which have been a treasured part of our heritage. They constituted a libel on the military profession. They robbed us of a moral victory and prestige which after a long and costly war should have been ours."

General A.C. Wedermeyer (1944), commander of US forces in China

"It was always my conviction that you and many of your comrades that were punished at the war crimes trial at Nuremberg had only carried out your orders as professional military men and in the process that you had not committed offenses contrary or repugnant to international law or decency and human relation"

"talks of the travesty of justice known as the Nuremberg trials, I feel certainly the vast majority of us were violently opposed to the proceeding, but were obliged to look on helplessly while honorable men who follow the honorable profession of arms in defense of their country just as we did were tried and found guilty of crimes that did not exist by a prejucided court composed of their enemies under a code which no civilised country recognizes. We who fough honorably salute you, Admiral Doenitz."

"I consider the war crimes trials in general and the trial of Admiral Doenitz in particular a matter of mass hypocrisy resulting from a war-bred hangover. True, politicans were responsible, but I recall few protests from the man in the street at the time. The military, who had a greater license to be angry, were opposed to it at the time, especially the "professional" sailors and soldiers!"

"... a fantastic desecration of the ideals of Western Civilisation, and appalling miscarriage of justice... a misuse of evidence for vicious ends, all of which will someday be exposed as a shocking travesty of high legal and moral principles." - Henry M. Adams, Ph.D. Professor of History, University of California

JUSTICE ON TRIAL

The International Tribunal at Nuremberg, set up to pass judgement on the vanquished nations, was neither international nor legal in any accepted sense of these terms.

Most of these 'trials' were arranged independently of other victor nations; Great Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union along with dictatorships created by the allies, Participation by neutral states or observers was neither invited nor welcomed. Mostly, they were 'military tribunals' such as the American Military Tribunal' which ran 'trials' at Dachau.

The British government set up its own trials, independently of other victor nations so it is difficult to imagine why or how such charades could ever be described as being international in nature. The U.S Supreme Court on December, 20th, 1948, washed its hands of U.S Government responsibility when it stated: "We are satisfied that the Tribunal sentencing these prisoners is not a tribunal of the United States."

"Then why, one might ask, were U.S. citizens and government officials serving as prosecutors and judges, and why has the U.S. Government participated in and endorsed an alien tribunal which does not accord to defendants the same rights which American defendants would receive before U.S. courts at home?" - H.K Thompson and Henry Strutz,M.A. Doenitz at Nuremberg: A re-Appraisal. N.Y., 1976

"The Nuremberg process in itself was not a judicial process, but an act of vengeance against the defeated. Nuremberg was particularly profaned by the fact that the Russians were among the judges and themselves guilty of many crimes and atrocities . . . Being a jurist myself, and a Christian, I abhor the justice of Nuremberg." - Most Reverend. Bishop Vincentas Brizgys, Bishop of Lithuania

"I think the world expected us to give proof of American legal principles and judicial practice by using them when dealing with our defeated enemies. Instead of this, Gestapo and MVD methods were used.

"I have heard evidence and read documentary proofs to the effect that the accused persons were beaten up, maltreated and physically tortured by methods which could only be conceived by sick brains. They were subjected to mock trials and pretended executions, they were told that their families would be deprived of their ration cards. All these things were carried out with the approval of the Public Prosecutor to secure the psychological atmosphere necessary for the extortion of the required confessions. If the United States lets such acts committed by a few people go unpunished, then the whole world can rightly criticize us severely and forever doubt the correctness of our motives and our moral integrity." - Senator McCarthy, American Press, May 20th 1949

At the Dachau U.S Military Tribunals, interrogators poised as priests to extract confessions. The American judge, Edward L. Van Roden, one of the three members of an American Army Commission set up to investigate claims of maltreatment found:

"Posturing as priests to hear confessions and give absolution; torture with burning matches driven under the prisoners' fingernails; knocking out of teeth and breaking jaws; solitary confinement and near-starvation rations. The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and five months . . .

"the investigators would put a black hood over the head of the accused and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses . . .

"all but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operation procedure with our American investigators."

"Low rank prisoners were assured that convictions were being sought only against higher ranking officers, and they had absolutely nothing to lose by co-operating and making the desired statements. Such 'evidence' was then used against them - when they joined their superiors in the dock. The latter were told on the other hand that by 'confession', they would take all responsibility onto their own shoulders, thus shielding their men from trial."

"A favorite stratagem, when a prisoner refused to co-operate, was to arrange a mock trial. In these, death sentences were passed, then offers of a 'reprieve' if he confessed. Sometimes a prisoner would be threatened with being handed over to the Russians, his family deprived of their ration cards - or worse."

Colonel A.H Rosenfeld upon whose rulings the admissibility was final, when asked about these sham trials replied:

"Yes, of course. We couldn't have made these birds talk otherwise. . . it was a trick and it worked like a charm."

"Hearsay evidence was admitted indiscriminately and sworn statements of witnesses were admissible regardless of whether anybody knew the person who made the statement or the individual who took the statement." - George McDonough, American Lawyer, New York Times

The circus aspect of these show trials was such that when a certain gentleman of the name Einstein tearfully accused a German named Menzel of murdering his brother, the defendant pointed out that his brother was alive and well, and sitting in the court. The presiding investigator scolded Einstein.

"How can we bring this pig to the gallows if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into court?"

Hardly surprising therefore that the highest ranking military commanders, predominantly but not exclusively from the allied side, condemned the Nuremberg Trials as a judicial farce and a disgrace to civilized behavior. Their condemnation was echoed by thousands of eminent statesmen, jurists, intellectuals, writers, journalists, ecclesiastics and educators.

In 1956, H.K Thompson, Jr, a Yale graduate in naval science and history with a background in military and maritime law came together with Henry Strutz, M.A, a linguist, university teacher and associate member of the U.S. Naval Institute. They marked the release of Grand Admiral Doenitz by beginning a project of contemporary and informed opinion on the validity or otherwise of the Nuremberg Trials.

The book, Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal, Amber Publishing Group, NYC. 1976, was hailed as 'the most important work on the Nuremberg 'War Crimes Trials' to appear in 25 years.'

Over a period of twenty years, they invited, read and evaluated many thousands of letters, briefs and manuscripts offering comment on the trials. Those supporting the trials made up an insignificant minority and fell into three categories.

(1) A hard core who still maintained the legality of the trials, of which it was interesting to note that most had played a part in them.

(2) Those who whilst admitting their illegal status felt that they were politically necessary, and

(3) those who felt that the trials whilst unique were set to establish legal precedents to limit future wars, on the presumption that application would be applied equally, which of course it has not.

The compilers of Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-Appraisal saw no reason to unnecessarily duplicate the many thousands of informed comment critical of the Nuremberg Trials. These in essence were repetitive. They preferred instead to provide a cross sampling of views whilst depositing the entire results of their research with the H.K Thompson Collection at Hoover Library on War, Revolution and Peace, Stamford University.

THE WAR CRIMES 'TRIALS' ON TRIAL

"The Nuremberg Trials have made the waging of an unsuccessful war a crime; the generals on the defeated side were tried and then hanged." - Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery. June 9th 1948

"The truth of the matter is that no one of the victors was free of the guilt which its judges attributed to the vanquished." - The Chicago Tribune, October 2nd 1946

"In my judgement, the procedure by which the Nuremberg Tribunal was created and the criminals trials thereunder conducted, was completely fraught with illegality." - William L. Hart, The Supreme Court of Ohio

"This kangaroo court at Nuremberg was officially known as the 'International Military Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. Nuremberg was, in fact, a lawyers' tribunal, although I can readily understand why the legal profession is ashamed to claim it, and deliberately stuck a false label on it.

"I am glad our real military men had nothing to do with the travesty on justice that the lawyers and 'statesmen' conducted on Nuremberg." - Rear Admiral Dan V. Gallery. U.S.N. (Ret.)

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

Quote:
In his book, Profiles in Courage, President John F. Kennedy praised Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, for having the courage to publicly denounce the Nuremberg Trials and reveal them to have been held in, "a spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials - government policy and not justice - with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage."

"I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure." - Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky, Aircraft Designer

"What we did in this case was to resort to private vengeance. Admiral Doenitz and other leaders who were imprisoned should be recompensed for their treatment." - - Dr. John L. Gillin, Emeritus Professor of Criminology, University of Wisconsin

"I have been boiling mad for years over the 'war crimes trials which I think were despicable and contemptible, and smack more of ancient Rome's barbarism than of a so-called civilized country. Not only were the 'war crimes trials' one of the blackest spots on our recent black (and Red) history, but the bombing of the only two Christian cities in Japan in August, 1945, via the atomic bomb calls to high heaven for retribution." - Taylor Caldwell, American novelist

To Grand Admiral Doenitz:

"I have always felt, and still feel that you were treated unfairly.... your conviction by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal was a miscarriage of justice." - U.S. Senator William Langer

"The Nuremberg Trials were contrary to legal precepts." - - Alfonso of Bourbon and Orleans, Infante of Spain; Great-grandson of Queen Victoria

"It is not right to bring to trial officers or men who have acted under orders from higher authority.... the most brutal act of the war was the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan... the allies were far from guiltless and should have taken that into fuller consideration." - Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Chatfield, P.C., G.C.B, Commander-in-Chief, British Atlantic Fleet

"I regard the Nuremberg 'war crimes trials' as one of the worst reflections upon enlightened leadership in world affairs as ever has been known. The trials really were a disgrace upon all who participated therein." - Hon. Michael Francis Doyle, LL.D, International lawyer, Papal Chamberlain

"The idea of trying the leaders of defeated nations as 'war criminals' is but a first step toward the dark ages." - Vice Admiral John F. Shafroth, U.S.N., Commander South Pacific Area

"It is my considered opinion that the Nuremberg Trials violated the reputation for justice so long held by the British and American peoples, and that many of the findings contravened our most sacred constitutional principles." - - Air Vice-Marshal Hugh Champion de Crespigny, R.A.F., C.B., M.C., D.F.C.

"The Nuremberg Trials were a tragic mistake. They will haunt us always." - Major General James E. Chaney, USAF

".. a libel on the military profession." - Vice Admiral Hewlett Thebaud, USN

"The Nuremberg Trials have created a deplorable precedent in international law." - Dr. Samuel T. Chambers, Professor of History, University of Baltimore

"... a vindictive travesty of every canon of old military law." - Dr. Francis Neilson, Author and historian

"Aside from the horrendous demand for 'Unconditional Surrender,' certainly the most stupid error of America's World War Two policies was to sponsor and participate in the so-called Nuremberg Trials." - Honorable Howard Buffett. Lawyer, U.S Congress

"My attitude towards the War Crimes Trials is epitomized in a terse reply by Colonel McCormick (Chicago Tribune): 'I will never lend my presence where legalized murder is imposed." - Major General Charles L. Mullins, Jnr. USA

"They (The Nuremberg Trials) set a very dangerous precedent." - Honourable Frank A.W Lucas, Judge of Appeal, High Commission Territories, Union of South Africa

"I believe the trials in general were a travesty of justice." - Honourable Joseph H. Ball, U.S. Senator, Minnesota

"The dangerous precedent set at Nuremberg must be removed." - Rear Admiral Nils Wijkmark, Royal Swedish Navy

"... a great shame, the direct responsibility for which rests upon the legal fraternity of Great Britain and the United States." - O. Glenn Saxon, LL.B., AM. Professor of Economics, Yale University

"A barefaced hypocrisy." - Major General William Church Davis. USA

"... one should consider with disgust and sorrow this (Nuremberg Trials) and similar deeds which are dishonourable not only for the winners but also for the developments of the morals of humanity." - Lieutenant General Fahri Belen, Turkish Army

"Unwarranted, unjust and illegal." - Major General George L. Eberle, USA

"Unjust ands a reflection on the United States." - Brigadier General Robert E. Wood, USA

"What's the difference between Nuremberg and chaining the captured vanquished to the chariot of the victor to be dragged around an arena to the plaudits of the victor's henchmen?" - Hon. George Bell Timmerman, LL.D. American jurist.

"... could not have been fair and impartial and therefore should not have been held at all." - Admiral Felix B. Stump, U.S.N

"A disgrace upon America and should never have taken place." - J.H Gipson, Sr. President, The Caxton Printers Ltd, Economist and author

"Our government has set a precedent that can come back to plague it." - William R. Mathews. Editor, Arizona Daily Star

"I can well remember, at the time of the Nuremberg Trials, my great uneasiness about the justice of placing senior, or indeed any officers, on trial for carrying out orders from higher authority." - Vice Admiral Cyril St. Clair Cameron, Royal Navy, C.B.E

"A grave mistake and illegal." - Major General Harry H. Vaughan, U.S. Army Reserve

".. one of the greatest, most unjust crimes ever committed by so-called civilised people. Undoubtedly military leaders of the so-called allies, were just as guilty of the charges made against those who were tried." - Hon. J. Bracken Lee, Governor, State of Utah

"I consider that the trials have done an immeasurable amount of harm." - - General Richard J. Mulcahy of Ireland; Minister of Defence

"I applaud and endorse this effort to call attention to the injustice of the Nuremberg 'war crimes trials and to the dangerous precedent set by them." - Hon. Henry P. Fletcher, LL.D. U.S. Under Secretary of State

"In my opinion, the trials of professional military men as for instance the Nuremberg Trials remind of the barbarian days when prisoners-of-war were killed just because they had fought." - General Hendrik J, Kruls, Royal Netherlands Army

"Our country could never live down its participation in such a shameful travesty of justice." - Major General John Shirley Wood, USA

"... the result of hysteria on the part of those responsible." - Vice Admiral Glenn B. Davis, U.S.N

"I would like to say that I regard the 'war crimes trials' as a crime." - Rev. Dr. John H. Holmes, D.D. (Jewish Institute of Religion), Director, American Civil Liberties Union

"I am of the opinion that the war crimes trials were illegal." Hon. W. Dahanayake, Prime Minister of Ceylon

"This reminds us of the Dark Ages and proves that the spiritual development of our World lags far behind the miraculous materialistic progress." - Honourable Najeeb-Al-Armanazi, LL.D. Secretary General, Presidency of the Republic of Syria

"I have always felt that the 'War Crimes Trials' were the brain child of Stalin and sold to the U.S. and Britain." - Commodore Carlos Augustus Bailey, U.S.N

"There was no authorization or precedent in International Law for those trials and I consider the precedent set at that time to be most dangerous and an international disgrace." - Rear Admiral James D. Barner, U.S.N

"... a fantastic desecration of the ideals of Western Civilisation, and appalling miscarriage of justice... a misuse of evidence for vicious ends, all of which will someday be exposed as a shocking travesty of high legal and moral principles." - - Henry M. Adams, Ph.D, Professor of History, University of California

"The Nuremberg process in itself was not a judicial process, but an act of vengeance against the defeated. Nuremberg was particularly profaned by the fact that the Russians were among the judges and themselves guilty of crimes and atrocities... Being a jurist myself, and a Christian, I abhor the justice of Nuremberg." - Most Rev. Bishop Vincentas of Lithuania

"The 'Military Tribunals' constituted by the allies to judge the military and civilian authorities of the vanquished country have no legal basis whatsoever." - Edison Diaz Salvo, General of Aviation of the Republic of Chile

"I was and am against the War Crimes Trials in principle. .... a dangerous precedent which will someday back-fire." - Major General Orlando Ward, USA

"A serious mistake." - Major General Paul W. Baade, USA

"I believe that no sane person can approve what was done by the Nuremberg Tribunal, where all the norms of civilisation were violated." - - Admiral Don Francisco Bastarreche, Admiral of the Spanish Fleet

"... the majority of these trials, as being illegal and travestic of justice, ... I regret my country had anything to do with it." - Vice Admiral Walter S. Anderson, U.S.N

"I consider the War Trials as one of the most disgraceful manifestations of the post war hysteria." - Vice Admiral Richard H. Cruzen, U.S.N, Commander, Naval Forces, Philippines, 1951

"I feel very strongly on the basic principles involved in 'war crimes trials' and the flagrant travesty on justice resulting from such hypocrisy." - Rear Admiral James E. Arnold, U.S.N.R

"Of course the action against you was grossly unjust; and it is a sorry blot on my country's history. . . I'll only express one bit of satisfaction; - Despite some titles and uniforms worn by my own countrymen in the Nuremberg affair, none of them were really Military or Naval men . . . may I salute you." - Admiral Thomas C. Hart, U.S.N, Commander-in-Chief, Asiatic Fleet, World War 11

"The war crimes trials was a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly its leaders." - Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, U.S.N Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Fleet

"To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug." - Major General J.F.C Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O. British military historian and author

"The war trials were a low level to which farce was connected." - Hon. Henry W. Shoemaker, Litt.D. Colonel Military Intelligence. U.S.A.R

"an illegal procedure and a 'barefaced hypocrisy'. I felt that way at the time of the trials and so stated." - Hon Burton K. Wheeler, U.S. Senator, Candidate for vice-presidency of United States

" ..... your recent release (Admiral Karl Doenitz) evoke in me the feeling of shame for my country which I felt during the travesty on justice known as the Nuremberg Trials." - Lieutenant General Pedro A. del Valle, U.S.M.C, Commanding General, 1st Marine Division, World War 11

"... The criminal trials of military leaders in Germany at the close of World war 11 were not in accordance with international law nor supported by legal authorisation of any civilised country." - Hon. Usher L. Burdick. Member of Congress

"I have always regarded the Nuremberg Trials as a travesty upon justice and the farce was made even more noisome with Russia participating as one of the judges." - Charles Callan Tansill, Ph.D. Professor of History

"The war crimes trials were an abomination and will plague our people for centuries." - Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, USA, Planning Group, O.S.S World War 11

"I have been greatly shocked and disturbed by this international action." - Honourable William Phillips, U.S. Under Secretary of State

"I have a very long record of opposition to the holding of these trials." - The Rt. Hon.Lord Hankey, P.C., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O.., LL.D. Minister in War Cabinet, World War 11

"I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg Trials . . . the weak points of such trials are obvious." - T.S Eliot. English poet and author

"I have neither read nor followed the testimony concerned in the so-called 'War Crimes Trials' at Nuremberg because the entire procedure, in my opinion, became a nauseating farce through the participation of the Soviet 'judges'. The presence of these minions of a barbarous and mediaeval autocracy elevated this disgraceful episode to the stratosphere of hypocrisy." - Hon. James H.R Cromwell. U.S. Minister to Canada, 1940

"... was a lapse from present-day standards of civilisation and justice to the Dark Ages. Let us fervently hope that we have seen the last of such action." - Vice Admiral Everett C. Morsell, S.C., U.S.N

"I apologize to Admiral Doenitz and the German people for what, done then in our name without our approval or consent, has resulted in such injury to everybody involved." - Professor Dr. Herbert C. Sanborn. Historian and author

"I am wholly in agreement as to the hypocrisy and illegality of the Nuremberg Trials. The Nuremberg Trials set a dangerous precedent and must be exposed...." - Air Commodore G.S. Oddie, D.F.C., A.F.C. Deputy Director R.A.F, World War II

"The Nuremberg Trials were a disgrace to civilisation, and, as a teacher of young men and women, I have deeply regretted that my country joined in this outrageous action." Kenneth Colegrove, Ph.D. Consultant to General Douglas MacArthur

"There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that these trials were 'a libel on the military profession.' I am sorry." - Vice Admiral Mahlon S. Tisdale, U.S.N. Commander, Destroyers, Pacific Fleet, World War 11

"An outrage against good morals, an absurdity in point of international law, and a deplorable error in policy. They set a precedent for what amounts to the legalised lynching of the leaders of the defeated side in any future war." - Hoffman Nickerson, American author

"I have no doubt that the Nuremberg 'War Crimes Trials' were an instrument of revenge rather than of justice. As an American citizen, I apologise to Admiral Doenitz." - Colonel Ulius L. Amoss, U.S.A.F. Deputy Chief of Staff, 9th Air Force, World War II

"I consider the 'war crimes trials' in general and the trial of Admiral Doenitz in particular, a matter of mass hypocrisy resulting from a war-bred hangover." - Vice Admiral A. Stanton Merrill, U.S.N Commander, Cruiser Division

"... they were most unjust and cruel." - Admiral of the Fleet, The Rt. Hon. 12th Earl of Cork and Orrery, G.C.B. Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet and Portsmouth.

"The Nuremberg Charter under which Doenitz was tried created alleged crimes for which there is no precedent or justification in international law or usage." - Vice Admiral Kenneth G.B Dewar, C.B.E. Commanded H.M.S. Royal Oak and Tiger

"But the real guilty ones are the British Admiralty, the French Department of the Marine, and the Navy Departments of all countries, including our own. They are the guilty ones, not the officers who obeyed their orders." - Commodore Julius F. Hellweg, U.S.N

"They smell. I have always considered them as legalistic hocus-pocus to give semblance of respectability to barbarous vengeance inflicted upon opponents who have merely done their duty on the losing side of a war. A primitive idea supposed to be in disrepute for some centuries." - Rear Admiral George van Deurs, U.S.N. World War 11

"... had the same legal status as a Kangaroo Court.... The 'War Crimes Trials' can only be justified by Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist and New Dealist doctrines." - - Rear Admiral Henry C. Flanagan, U.S.N. Commander, Transport Divisions, Pacific

"....largely for propaganda purposes and unwise." - Major General William W.P Gibsone, C.M.G., D.S.O., O.B.E., Royal Canadian Army

"Many of us felt that the actions taken were autocratic and had no place in a democracy." - Vice Admiral Edward W. Hanson, U.S.N

"... contrary to civilised ideals and principles of legal justice. This country owes to Grand Admiral Doenitz and to many other men at the least a humble apology for what we have caused them to suffer. Let us hope that we have learned from these tragic mistakes a lesson we shall never forget, and that never again shall we repeat such conduct." - Honourable Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge

Note: The Honourable Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge, served as a member of the Commission set up to investigate the cases of German officers and soldiers tried by the American Military Courts at Dachau. He later testified as to the methods of interrogation used which included legal farce, illegal, unfair and cruel (torture) methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt.

"I am glad to join other American citizens in condemning such procedures as those established." - Hon. Hugh G. Grant, American Diplomat

"I think those (Nuremberg) trials were the greatest mistake our government could have made and predict that the precedent set will haunt this country for hundreds of years." - Major General Howard C. Davidson. U.S.A.F World War 11

"The infamous 'war crimes trials' will undoubtedly cause the future inhabitants of this cockeyed planet to blush with embarrassment." - Robert LeFevre, American educator and author

"I attended the Nuremberg Trials for several days as a guest of one of the legal profession. One cannot help getting the impression that the law was fabricated." - General Sir Henry Charles Loyd, K.C.B., C.B., K.C.V.O., D.S.O., M.C. Commander-in-Chief, Southern Command

"The trials were not based on justice, precedent or international law. They have set a vicious precedent." - Admiral Laurence T. DuBose, U.S.N. Commander, Cruiser Division. World war II

"I was asked if I would sit on the Court which was assembled to try Field Marshall von Manstein about 1948, but refused because I felt that the whole principle of these war crimes trials was wrong.

"In fact, it seems to me that the basis of the majority of the war crimes trials were not founded on true democratic justice, but on revengeful desire to punish a number of military commanders for all the sin and misery and suffering, inseparable from war." - General Sir Frank W. Messervy, K.C.S.I., K.B.E., C.B., D.S.O. Commander-in-Chief, Malaya Command

"... in the past, conquerors sometimes executed their opponents, but I never head of any attempt to legalise it." - Admiral Samuel M. Robinson, Jnr, U.S.N

"An ugly miscarriage of justice... only hate and war hysteria could have permitted such a weird concept of war crime." - Rear Admiral Arthur T. Moen, U.S.N

"... should not be liable to such trials." - Major General Sir William L.O. Twiss, K.C.I.E., C.B., C.B.E., M.C., F.R.G.S. General Officer Commanding British Army in Burma

"Such acts as the Nuremberg Trials of gallant opponents do not auger well for peace in future. They are merely boding more evil, and more severity for the leading victims after a war, and lower the prestige of the victors." - Lady Evelyn Margaret Chetwynd

"The trial of German alleged war criminals, citizens of a defeated country, conducted by judges of a victorious enemy country was in itself a gross infringement of the elementary principles of justice and equity." - Hon. Luigi Villari, Grand Officer of the Crown of Italy

"It had no authorisation or precedent in international law, which has no punitive provisions." - Admiral Charles P. Snyder, U.S.N. Commander, Battleships, Pacific Fleet. 1939

"... the 'war crimes trials' were a disgrace to our American tradition, and equally as bad, they created a precedent which can only mean liquidation of the entire brains of the United States should Communists prevail in this country." - Devin E. Garrity, President, Devin-Adair Company. Publishers

"As far as the 6th Armored Division was concerned in its 280 days in front line contact, there was no atrocity problem. Frankly, I was aghast, as were many of my contemporaries, when we learned of the proposed 'war crimes trials and the fact that military commanders were among the accused.

"I firmly believe that the 'war crimes trials' were ill-conceived, vindictively executed, and served only to lower the dignity and prestige of America." - Major General Robert W. Grow, USA. Commander, 6th Armored Division in Europe. World War II

"I have always looked upon the 'war crimes trials' as an unlawful revengeful act rather than a court of justice." - Admiral John E. Gingrich, U.S.N

"I consider the trial of German officials after World War 11 was outrageous and cannot be condoned." - Major General James Kelly Parsons, USA. Commanding General 3rd Corps

"The trial and condemnation of Admiral Doenitz was an insult to both British and American submariners." - Captain Bernard Acworth, Royal Navy, D.S.O

"It was my opinion at the time of the Nuremberg Trials, and still is, that the officers concerned were not treated in a way corresponding to the principles of justice and democracy." - Vice Admiral Thore Horve, Royal Norwegian Navy. C.B.E., D.S.C

".... a precedent which should not be followed among what are commonly described as civilized nations." - Dr. George Peabody Gooch, C.H. British historian and author

"My view is that the law must be applied to all. Had this been applied at the time of these trials, there would have been a number of ranking officers among the victors who stood trial. I hope you succeed in destroying the dangerous precedent set." - Major General Frederick F. Worthington, C.B., M.C., M.M., C.D. General Officer Commanding, Armored Division, 1942

".... this whole procedure was a result of mass hysteria and conducted in spirit of mob violence." - Major General Thomas O. Hardin. U.S.A.F.R

"On the War Crimes Trials in General and the Doenitz case in particular, I have always thought that these trials were a mistake and that military commanders on the losing side should not be tried for war crimes by international military tribunals set up by the victors...." - Major General William F. Tomkins, USA

"I was of the opinion that the victorious nation was indulging in hypocrisy in bringing the reputable German military leaders to trial for war crimes." - Admiral E.T Wooldridge, U.S.N. Commandant, The National War College

"It was a shameful manifestation of the 'Vae Victis' mentality." - Lieutenant General Erik Testrup, Royal Swedish Army

"A throwback to the days of barbarism, a proof of man's inhumanity to man, a complete lack of decent respect for the welfare of our fellow-man, and a violation of all elements of justice and decency." - Major General Clements McMullen, U.S.A.F

"So, the Nuremberg Trials were illegal - a reflection on discipline. I hold Admiral Doenitz in the highest esteem, and his trial and imprisonment were outrageous." - Rear Admiral John Wainwright, U.S.N. (Commanded Yangste River Patrol.)

"I have long held firm views on the trials of military persons for what I always regarded as political 'crimes.' In fact, I felt so strongly that I asked to be excused . . ." - Major General Robert S. Beightler, USA

"... a renewal of the old way of thinking, 'woe to the vanquished,' not worthy of any civilized nation." - Major General L. Melander, Army of Finland

"A false tribunal based on false laws." - General Emile Janssens, Royal Belgian Army

"A permanent blot on the record of the allies." - Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D. American historian

"The spirit which led the British and American people to look on complacently while their authorities were committing the monstrous injustice of holding the Nuremberg Trials, was nothing new; for it is latent in every savage beast; . . .

"Consequently, in the matter of chivalry, justice and fair-play, the English record is even blacker than it was after World War I and the savagery and inhumanity that was displayed was far less restrained. . .

"From the looting and the sadistic ill-treatment of the defenceless population of the allied troops and control officials - Englishmen, Frenchmen, Russians and Americans, to the despicable display of troglodytic beastliness in the Nuremberg Trials, where Englishmen, Frenchmen and Americans sank to the level of Russian prosecutors in a 'Great Purge' trial and committed the extra infamy of pretending that the proceedings were 'legal' and 'just'.

"At least when the ancients 'liquidated' the military or other leaders of their defeated enemy, they marched a Caractacus or a Vercingetorix through the streets of Rome, they never aggravated the iniquity by trying to make it appear the outcome of a just and bona fide legal process." - Anthony M. Ludovici, English Army Officer, (World War.1) Philosopher and author of 33 works, 1909 - 1960

"There was something cynical and revolting in the spectacle of British, French and American judges sitting on the bench with a colleague representing a country which before, during, and since the trials, had perpetrated half the political crimes in the calendar." - Lord Hankey, House of Lords, May, 5th, 1949

"I have always maintained, and I have written to this effect, that the war crimes trials were wholly illegal from the point of view of international law." - Herbert A. Smith, D.C.L, Professor of International Law, University of London, 1928-1946

"I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world.... I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground." - Edgar N. Eisenhower, American attorney, brother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Accusations by English scribblers of 'barbarism' on the part of Germans or other troops invariably provoke my indignation by their arrant hypocrisy. Accident of fate has brought it about that much of my military and civil career was occupied with the suppression or attempted suppression, of armed rebellion or severe civilian commotion, and I have seen or investigated enough atrocities committed by British and Irish troops in three countries to fill several books." - Aubrey T.O Lees. English Colonial Administrator and Army officer. Served in Ireland during the revolution (1920 - 1922), in Iraq (1922 - 1925, and for ten years in Palestine.

Space limitations preclude further comment. Clearly, nobody but the most grievously misinformed could lay claim to the Nuremberg processes as being anything other than a disgraceful slide into ancient Rome's barbarism, equaled only by the blood-letting of Stalin's purges.

Suffice it is to say that these comments are as one with the more fully expressed sentiments volunteered by many thousands of similarly well informed and often illustrious men - and women, who were better placed than most to offer an opinion.(...)

When
abuse of German prisoners was investigated in the US-run Schwaebisch
Hall prison near Stuttgart in 1945, " of the 139 cases examined, 137 had
had their testicles permanently destroyed."

British
historian Giles MacDonogh in his book After the Reich charges that SS
officers were subjected to brutal torture by US military interrogators
at a prison facility near Stuttgart (source):

More
conventional methods of torture included kicks to the groin,
deprivation of sleep and food and savage beatings. When the Americans
set up a commission of inquiry into the methods used by their
investigators, they found that, of the 139 cases examined, 137 had “had
their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the
American War Crimes Investigation team.”

Rudolf
Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz from 1940 - 1943 was captured by the
British on March 13, 1946. Affadavits written and signed in English were
forced from Hoess on several occasions. Although in regard to the
charges of "crimes against humanity" Hoess was arguably the most
important prisoner, his role at Nuremberg was not as one of the
convicted by as a defense witness for Ernest Kaltenbrunner. Today Hoess'
confession obtained through torture along with his testimony at
Nuremberg and his later "memoirs" written while awaiting execution in a
Polish prison cell make up some of the most important evidence to
support the Holocaust story. Establishment historians tend to ignore the
methods used to obtain the Hoess "confessions." Revisionist historians
have argued for years that the Hoess "confessions" are basically
worthless due to how they were obtained. Since so much of the Hoess
testimony was derived for a court of law or became part of the legal
record, it is only fair that the proper legal implications of his
torture, which included threats to his direct family members, be
reviewed.

More Nazi confessions via torture"starvation, brutality, and threats of bodily harm","so brutal as to be repulsive."Press reports on the 1949 US Senate subcommittee which was investigatingthe circumstance of the trials of Nazis held by the Americans at Dachau.The committee read a letter from an American journalist, James Bailey, whowas part of a 9 man team which recorded the confessions of the Germans, buthad requested a transfer after 10 weeks. He could no-longer stomach howconfessions were extracted from Germans, "starvation, brutality, and threatsof bodily harm", "so brutal as to be repulsive." The prosecution had made"a mockery of justice" and had been manufacturing evidence.The Michigan Daily - Apr 19, 1949 - page 8

Connecticut’s Senator Christopher Dodd presents history close up in book about his fatherSunday, September 30, 2007M. Charles BakstThe Providence Journal[...]Consider these Sept. 25, 1945, observations from Tom Dodd, who would emerge as second in command on the American prosecution team:

“You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge — you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial
— for their own sake. For — mark this well — the charge ‘a war for the
Jews’ is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made
again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge.Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter —it is distasteful to me — but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else.”

Note that this admission is coming from someone who is sympathetic to the Jews and opposes "anti-semitism."

Just
like the fiasco at Versailles after the first world war, the Nuremberg
trials were controlled by powerful jews and jewish organisations.

Indicative
of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the
important Jewish role in organizing these trials. Nahum Goldmann,
one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World
Zionist Organization, reported in his memoir that the Nuremberg
Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials. Only
after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied
leaders to accept the idea, he added. (note 8)8. Nahum
Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox (New York: 1978), p. 122.; N. Goldmann,
The Autobiography of Nahum Goldmann (New York: 1969), pp. 216-217.; WJC
official Rabbi Maurice Perlzweig claimed in 1949 that "it was the WJC
which had secured the holding of the Nuremberg Trials ..." See: "W.J.C.
Claims: The Nuremberg Trials," Jewish Chronicle (London), Dec. 16,
1949, p. 17. See also confirmatory letter by Zelmanovits in: Jewish
Chronicle, Dec. 30, 1949, p. 16. Note also: Milton R. Konvitz, "Will
Nuremberg Serve Justice?," Commentary (New York), Vol. I, No. 3,
January 1946, p. 11.

The World Jewish Congress also played an
important but less obvious role in the day to day proceedings. Above
all, the powerful but secretive organization made sure that Germany's
persecution of the Jews was a primary focus of the trials, and that the
defendants were punished for their involvement in that process. (note
9)9. World Jewish Congress, Unity in Dispersion (New York: WJC, 1948), pp. 141, 264, 266, 267.

Two
Jewish officers in the US Army -- Lieutenant Colonel Murray Bernays
and Colonel David "Mickey" Marcus -- played key roles in the Nuremberg
enterprise. In the words of historian Robert Conot, Bernays was "the
guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg." Bernays, a successful New
York attorney, persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to
accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial. (note
10)10. Robert E. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg (New York:
Harper & Row, 1983), pp. 10-13; Bradley F. Smith, Reaching
Judgment at Nuremberg (New York: Basic, 1977), pp. 26-33. Tom Bower,
Blind Eye to Murder (London: 1983), pp. 116 f. On the other hand,
American-Jewish newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer did not favor such
trials. In May 1945 he urged that 1.5 million leading Germans should be
simply be summarily shot. The New York Times, May 23, 1945, p. 11

Marcus,
a fervent Zionist, became the "number three man in making American
policy" in occupied Germany. As chief of the US government's War Crimes
Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges,
prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials. (He later became a
commander of Zionist "Haganah" military forces in Palestine.) (note
11)11. Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
(IHR, 1983), pp. 27-30, 100. Sources cited: Ted Berkman, Cast a Giant
Shadow (1962); "War Crimes" article written by Marcus in Britannica
Book of the Year, 1947, pp. 819-21; Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 11, p.
945; Saturday Evening Post, Dec. 4, 1948, p. 179. See also: R. Conot,
Justice at Nuremberg (1983), p. 11.

Some of the Americans who
participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the
entire business. One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles
F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding
judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals. "If I had known seven
months ago what I know today, I would never have come here," he
declared immediately after sentences were pronounced. "The high ideals
announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been
evident," he added. (note 12)12. Hal Foust, "Nazi Trial Judge Rips 'Injustice'," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 23, 1948, pp. 1, 2.Wennerstrum
cautiously referred to the extensive Jewish involvement in the
Nuremberg process. "The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome ...
Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became
Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in
Europe's hatreds and prejudices." He criticized the one-sided handling
of evidence. "Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary,
selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was
made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents
which the prosecution considered material to the case." He concluded
that "the trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of
their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost
the war to tough conquerors." Wennerstrum left Nuremberg "with a
feeling that justice has been denied."

In Congress, US
Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared: "The Nuremberg
trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that
we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history ... The
Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst." (note 14)14. Congressional Record -- Appendix, Vol. 95, Sec. 14, (June 15, 1949), p. A 3741.Another
Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated: "As a representative
of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in
Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States... A racial
minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg
not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the
name of the United States." (note 15)15. Congressional
Record -- House, Vol. 93, Sec. 9, (Nov. 28, 1947), p. 10938. Also
quoted in: W. Bosch, Judgment on Nuremberg (1970), p. 83.

I
was pretty excited when this book came in for me at the library. Chris
Dodd's father, Thomas Dodd was one of the lead prosecuters at the
Nuremberg Trials, along with Robert Jackson, the chief prosecuter for
the United States. The book is a series of letters that Tom Dodd wrote home to his wife.
The letters are touching but get old after awhile. I was hoping for
more insight into the trials and the defendants. In that regard the book
was lacking. Some
interesting things that did come through were Dodd's observations of
Germany shortly after the war, the utter destruction of German cities,
the starvation of its people, and the pillaging of Germany by the
Russians.

Nuremberg
chief prosecutor Thomas J. Dodd wrote
privately that the overly Jewish staffing
of the prosecution team would make people
say WW2 had been fought for their benefit
aloneSENATOR Christopher
J. Dodd, running for U.S. president,
is out with a book. But it's not a
conventional candidate biography or
blueprint for change.
It's about the Connecticut Democrat's
late father, Thomas J. Dodd
(above), who preceded him in the
Senate. In fact, most of it was written by
his father -- and it is fascinating.
The book, which the senator put
together with the assistance of Larry
Bloom, is Letters from Nuremberg:
My Father's Narrative of a Quest for
Justice.
The senior Dodd wrote the letters in
1945-'46 to his wife, Grace, back home in
Connecticut, while he was abroad, mostly
in Germany, as a prosecutor in the Allies'
war crimes trial of 22 top Nazis,
including Hermann Göring, Joachim
von Ribbentrop and Albert
Speer. (All but three were convicted;
12 were sentenced to hang.)
Consider these Sept. 25, 1945,
observations from Tom Dodd, who would
emerge as second in command on the
American prosecution team:

"You
know how I have despised anti-Semitism.
You know how strongly I feel toward
those who preach intolerance of any
kind. With that knowledge -- you will
understand when I tell you that this
staff is about seventy-five percent
Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews
should stay away from this trial -- for
their own sake. "For
-- mark this well -- the charge 'a war
for the Jews' is still being made and
in the post-war years it will be made
again and again. "The
too large percentage of Jewish men and
women here will be cited as proof of
this charge. Sometimes it seems that
the Jews will never learn about these
things. They seem intent on bringing
new difficulties down on their own
heads. I do not like to write about
this matter --it is distasteful to me
-- but I am disturbed about it. They
are pushing and crowding and competing
with each other and with everyone
else."

Chris Dodd tells me that when he reads
this letter, "I first of all cringe a
little bit because I
wonder what he's driving
at."Source: Complete
article

My Revolutionary Life: Muzzling the Vanquished
With
an introduction by John NugentF or those of us who escaped in 1945
from the Eastern Front’s final hell, torn up by wounds, overcome by
sorrows, devoured by pain, what rights do we still have? We are dead
men. Dead men with legs, arms, and breath—but dead. To pronounce a word
of truth in public or write a dozen lines without lies after having
fought pistol in hand against the Soviet machine—above all, to have been
a leader called “fascist”—this is immediately seen by the ... more info

Hajo Herrmannhttp://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/herrmann.htmlHajo
Herrmann (1913-2010) was an outstanding German Luftwaffe pilot
who also distinguished himself during the Second World War as a
courageous air force commander and innovative air defense tactician. After
the war he built a new career as an attorney, and became known for
his role in civil rights cases, defending patriots and so-called
“Holocaust deniers” accused of violating German laws against free
speech. Until his death at the age of 97, he remained steadfastly
loyal to his people, his heritage, and the ideals of his youth.After beginning his military career as an infantry officer, he was commissioned in the newly formed Luftwaffe in 1935.From 1936 until 1937, he was a bomber pilot in the Condor Legion, which aided the Nationalists in the Spanish civil war.After
the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939, he flew planes in the
campaigns in Poland and Norway. By 1940 he was Commander of the 7th Staffel
KG-4 combat squadron, and led many air attacks on England during
the “Battle of Britain.” In February 1941, his group went to Sicily,
where it flew against British forces in Malta and Greece. In one
attack, Herrmann dropped a bomb on an ammunition ship that set off a
explosion so devastating that it sank eleven ships and rendered the
Greek port of Piraeus unusable for months. In early 1942, he was
Commander of III/KG 30, which struck from Norway against Allied
Arctic convoys, including attacks on convoy PQ-17In
mid-1942 he was assigned to the Luftwaffe Operational Staff, where
he soon made a name for himself as a outstanding tactical and
operational innovator in strengthening Germany’s air defenses.

In
response to the ever more devastating attacks by British and
American bombers, Herrmann created Luftwaffe night fighter attack
squadron Jagdgeschwader 300, nicknamed Wilde Sau (German: wild
boar), which used an innovative freelance fighter technique.
Experienced night flying pilots and ex-instructors in Fw 190 fighters
would visually “free-hunt” enemy bombers by the light of fires
below, and with the aid of special ‘flare-carrier” Junkers JU 88 s
following the bomber streams, as well as the use of the Naxos radar
detector unit on some of these single-engined fighters to find
British night bombers when they were using radar.In
December 1943, the 30-year-old Herrmann was appointed Inspector of
Aerial Defense. By 1944, he was Inspector General of night
fighters. At the end of 1944, he led the “9. Flieger-division (J).”Because
all Germans were targeted for death in a ruthless bombing effort
that British and American authorities themselves called a “terror”
campaign, Germany’s improved air defenses saved the lives of many
women, children and other civilians. In helping to significantly
strengthen his nation’s air defense system, Herrmann played an
important role in saving many civilians from horrific suffering and
death.As
a bomber pilot, Herrmann flew 320 missions and sank twelve ships
totaling 70,000 tons. He also flew more than 50 night fighter
missions, destroying nine Allied bombers He was shot down four times,
and wounded twice. For his valor and skill, he earned a number of
decorations, including the Knight’s Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords,
the German Cross in Gold, andthe Iron Cross, first and second class.At the end of the war Herrmann became a Soviet captive, and was held for ten years in Soviet Russian prison camps. .After
returning to his homeland in 1955, he studied law and settled in
Düsseldorf., where he worked as an attorney. He served as a civil
rights lawyer in defending such “thought criminals” as Otto Ernst
Remer, David Irving and Fred Leuchter, who were charged with
violating German laws against free speech. In the case of Irving,
Herrmann defended the British historian at no charge in three
“thought crimes” trials, 1990-1993.Herrmann
was a friend of the Institute for Historical Review. On Nov. 8,
1998, he addressed an IHR meeting in southern California, where he
provided fascinating details about his remarkable life, and insights
into the climate of intellectual repression in Germany. Herrmann
was the author of two volumes of memoirs. An English-language
edition of his memoirs was published in 1991 under the title Eagle’s Wings.He remained active into the final years of his life, practicing law and addressing meetings.Revisionists.com
Friday, 24 February 2012

The greedier USrael
becomes for oil and Israel for the water resources of the Middle East, the reports about alleged crimes of Saddam Hussein
increase in their craziness.

The readiness to
wage a war of aggression against countries who have done nothing to the
aggressors, were already achieved during World War I by spreading
atrocity propaganda. The following is an overview about atrocity lies, which
were invented in order to find a shabby justification for unspeakable
destruction and mass murders.

1.
Gas-Chamber-Lies: With the help of a gas-chamber-lie America interfered
in the war against the German Reich in 1917. By meddling in this war,
America's enty into the war increased the regional conflict into a
full-scale world war. America's aim in the long run, was to bring Europe under its hegemonial
control. The Daily Telegraph published in 1916 a decisive
gas-chamber-lie which made the American people consent to America's war plans
for Europe.

The
Daily Telegraph

(London),
March 22,1916,
page 7:

(London),
June 25, 1942,
page 5:

ATROCITIES
IN SERBIA700,000 VICTIMS

... Serbian refugees, not on oath, have sta-ted that they
were present at a dis-tribution of bombs and machines for producing
asphyxiating gas to the Bulgarians by the Germans and Aus-trians, who
instructed the former how to utilise these instruments to exterminate
the Serbian population...

GERMANS
MURDER 700,000 JEWS IN POLAND

... The most gruesome details of mass killing, even to
the use of poison gas, are revealed in a report sent secretly to Mr. S.
Zygielboim, Jewish representative on the Polish National Council in
London, by an active group in Poland...

"Atrocity
propaganda is a term to define deliberate false reports about enemy
crimes in war time. In principle this has always been a means of
psychological warfare. Atrocity propaganda was used in abundance
during WWI that the propaganda's credibility was effected and the aims
very often could not be achieved. Such propaganda often caused
the opposite effect when obvious lies were exposed. Famous atrocity
propaganda lies were: German soldiers had, on detailed instruction by
their emperor, Wilhelm II, hacked off the hands of Belgium children and
then raped them. The other famous propaganda lie was published in
the London Daily Telegraph in March 1916, that claimed Austrians had
gassed 700,00 Serbs (sic!)"

Any similarity
between the above article and the one of the DAILY TELEGRAPH of 1916
would be purely accidental. Hitler's gas chambers are considered to be a
fact of common knowledge and not a war-propaganda-lie as it was the case
in 1916. The holocaust is judicially defined for the Germans as follows:

"The
mass murder of the Jews mainly took place in gas chambers of German
concentration camps. This is common knowledge and judicial notice."
(Supreme Court of Germany, File: 1 StR 179/93)

Jewish
celebrities (i.e. G. Sereny) do, however, make incriminating
statements by calling Auschwitz "not a death camp". This
constitutes a crime in Germany.

Gitta Sereny, one of Britain's most famous Jewish journalists and
a recognized holocaust
researcher, wrote a new book: The German Trauma: Experiences and
Reflections 1938-2001, (Penguin Books). The Times reviewed the book
and interviewed Mrs. Sereny. Mrs. Sereny said in the Interview (Times of Aug 29.
2001) the following:

"Why
on earth have all these people who made Auschwitz
into a sacred cow ... A terrible place -- but it was
not an extermination camp."

In 1991 Wiesenthal was
spreading gas chamber atrocity lies:

Feb 15, 1991, Frontpage:

WAR
NEWS!

IRAQIS
HAVE
GAS CHAMBERS
FOR ALL JEWS

Gas chambers
again. The Jewish weekly "The Jewish Press" (New York) reveals
on Feb. 15, 1991 that Saddam Hussein had gas chambers for all Jews. "Iraqis
have gas chambers for all Jews".

This latest gas
chamber revelation is not yet protected by the German law. It will be,
if it becomes relevant to support the common knowledge of the existence
of the Hitler gas chambers.

RESPONSE

THE
WIESENTHAL CENTER WORLD REPORT, Spring 1991, Vol. 12, No.1, S. 2:

Shocking
Revelation: German Firms Produce Zyklon B in Iraq

True
to the legacy of their Nazi-era predecessors, the German bu-siness
community has sought to absolve itself of its share of blame in the
current Middle East disaster. "We did not knowingly supply Iraq
with weapons of mass destruction - we violated no law - we were just
filling orders ... Even more ominous, is the report that Iraq has
developed a new potent gas which actually contains Zyklon B ... this
gas, and the nerve gas, Tabun, were tested on Iranian POWs in gas
chambers specially designed for the Iraqis by the German company ...
(see cover photo of gas chamber prototype). German Gas Chamber:
Nightmare Revisited ...

Simon Wiesenthal
lies about
gas chambers, as did the journalists from the Jewish Press and from The
Daily Telegraph of 1916. If you are from Germany, please don't get any wrong
ideas about the story of "The Daily Telegraph" of 1942.
Politically incorrect thinking of the Nazi gas chambers are punished in
Germany as "thought crimes" with up to five years of
incarceration.

2. Incubator LieGeorge W. Bush sr. forced America's
public opinion to support his war against Iraq in 1991 by inventing the
"Incubator-Lie". Bush sr. and the American media spread the lie
that Iraqi soldiers had snatched infants out of hospital incubators and
smashed them to pieces on the floors. George W. Bush said (re-translated
from German TV): "They hurl incubator babies like firewood on the
floor." (1) Before the Security Council of the Untied Nations a
young Kuwaiti girl witnessed, that she observed the mass murder of the
infants: "I saw with my own eyes how Iraqi soldiers tore infants out
of the incubators and I watched them dying on the floor." (2) The
young witness cried heartbreakingly when she told her story to the members of
the UN-Security Council. After her stageperformance as a so-called
eyewitness the war against Iraq was unanumously agreed and decided. The
justification for this war was, however, based on an atrocity lie: "After
the war, the whole truth came to light: The baby-murders never took place,
it was all a lie. The witness performance before the UN-Security-Council was
strong anough to be awarded with a Hollywood Oscar. The young girl who saw the
baby-murders was really the doughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to America.
The entire atrocity story was fabricated in New York, by the publicity
professionals of Hill & Knowlton. This firm maintains close contacts to
the American government. ... It was a perfidious show, a vast manipulation
in order to legitimise a war. In order to get the support from the American
Congress and the public, Bush had to prove that this war was against the
devil himself. An inhumane and barbaric Regime that does not even stop
before baby-murders. It was a PR-trick of the most perfidious kind."
(3)
1-3) German TV, PANORAMA No. 622, Feb 6, 20033. The Tonking-Lie"In 1964 in America, an
entire
nation wanted peace, the opposite to the desire of their government.
US-President Johnson was determined to wage war in Vietnam. To help
to
implent Johnson's war-project, an incident in the Gulf of Tonking
came just
at the right moment. On August 4 the US-Destroyer 'Maddox' was
alegedly
torpedoed by a North-Vietnamese torpedo-boat. A serious provocation
the Americans claimed. The case was brought before the United Nations
and the
mood changed. There was no longer a desire for peace amongst the
American public.
President Johnson had his pretext for bombing North-Vietnam. Lyndon
B.
Johnson (US-President) on TV then: 'As I speak to you tonight, our action is
now an execution.' For the first time America became directly involved in
combat on Vietnamese soil. That is how the Vietnam-War began. Seven years
later Journalists from the New York Times discovered that the pretext for war
was nothing but a propaganda lie. The truth is, the Americans together with
their ally South-Vietnam, attacked North-Vietnam first. ... Johnson needed
a pretext and a justification for a war against the Vietcong, as he had
to convince the congress for to back his war plans. Johnson needed the
American public and the world's support for his war in Vietnam. The 'Tonking-Lie' was just perfect."(German
TV, PANORAMA No. 622, Feb 6, 2003)4. The Kosovo-Lie"In January 1999, two
months before the war in Kosovo was launched, pictures of 23 dead Albanians,
lying next to each other in a row, implying that a massacre had taken place, were
sent to Western governments. German Defence Minister, Rudolf Scharping,
appreciated these photos, because he required photographic evidence of Serbian
atrocities, with which he intended to justify the imminent war against
Milosevic. The Minister showed these photos to the press as proof that a mass
murder had taken place in the Village of Rugovo. He claimed that the incident
had been thoroughly checked and investigated. Rudolf
Scharping: 'This case has been deeply investigated and we obtained these photos
from OSCE officials who had taken them in the morning between 7 and 8 h.'
... A German police official, Henning Hensch, who was at the site as an
international investigator, explained: 'The story is
incorrectly told. The dead
bodies were there, yes, but they were taken there by Serbian security
forces, after the real site of the crime had been inspected. It was decided
by the investigating judge to take the dead bodies away from the site where
they had died.' TV images prove: At first, the dead lay around scattered as
after a shoot-out. Amongst the dead were Albanian KLA fighters. After the
original crime scene had been inspected and investigated, the dead were
taken to another place and were laid next to each other in a row. This was
the scene later photographed and the pictures sent to Western governments.
These were the images the German Defence Minister had used when he proved a
Serbian massacre. ... It is about war in the heads and hearts of the people,
and those who win this one, win the real war eventually. This is especially
significant in democracies because they need the support of their own people
for waging wars." (German TV, PANORAMA No. 622, Feb 6, 2003)Which lie will America use to
justify its forthcoming war against Iraq? Perhaps this one:Re-translated from German: "The
Iraqis torture children and force their parents to watch the torture.
Witness accounts report on torture chambers and electric shock treatment,
also using red-hot iron for torture. The witness reports refer to cuting out
tongues and to raping. If that is not evil, then there is no evil."
This was said by President George W. Bush sr before Congress in February
2003. (German TV, PANORAMA
Nr. 622 vom 6.2.2003)

The term 'historical revisionism' was first used to apply to the work of historian Harry Elmer Barnes and his associates, whose earliest historical work was motivated by the belief that the generally-accepted versions of events of the First World War
not only harbored serious errors, but were heavily influenced by the
biases of the institutions which underwrote the "Court Historians"
responsible for these versions. Barnes, however, noted that historical revisionism -- "The
effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more complete
collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a
more objective attitude" in his words (Barnes Review Oct 94: 3)
-- was itself an activity with a very long history, going back at least
as far as the exposure of the forgery of the "Donation of Constantine"
by Lorenzo Valla (1407-57).

"Truth
is always the first war casualty. The emotional disturbances and
distortions in historical writing are greatest in wartime."

These are the words of historian, sociologist and criminologist Prof.
Harry Elmer Barnes, who founded a school of historical thought following World War One that became known as Revisionist.
But why Revisionist? What is Historical Revisionism? And
what makes it different from the history we learn in school and see
portrayed in the popular media?
For the late Dr. Barnes, Revisionism meant "...nothing more or less
than the effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more
complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political
atmosphere, and a more objective attitude."
The term originated with a group of scholars (French, British,
American, German and others) whose researches undermined the presumption
of unique German responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War
in 1914. Although the term Revisionist originally was used to
apply only to the question of guilt for WW I, it has subsequently come
to include all historical findings at odds with the Establishment
version. Revisionism is freedom of speech in history.
Those early Revisionists and those who followed the tradition
recognized a fact of life pertaining to the writing of history: in the
case of wars, historians of the victorious nations tend to write
historical accounts that ignore relevant facts not favorable to the
victor while, at the same time, misrepresenting or inventing other facts
in order to cast the loser in an unfavorable light. Most of these
historians had played an active role in World War I, many in propaganda
and intelligence; after the Second World War, it was not uncommon for
them to continue to have links with intelligence agencies.
The efforts of Establishment historians to remain on the good side of
the powers-that-be (like the court historians who served kings and
emperors of old) created a historical record that oftentimes resembled
wartime propaganda more than independent scholarship.
"To the victor go the spoils" is a well-known saying of American
president Andrew Jackson. One of the great spoils of winning a war is
being able to write the history of it from your own perspective.
When history is written by partisan historians from a victor nation,
the winning side emerges simplistically as the "good guys." The losers,
of course, are the "bad guys." Questions about the origins of the war
(for instance, about the real story behind the sinking of the Lusitania
or the attack on Pearl Harbor), about its conduct (did the "Huns" really
cut off infants' hands in Belgium? Were we justified in annihilating
the populations of whole cities like Dresden and Tokyo from the air?),
and about its conclusion (such as the wisdom of the Treaty of Versailles
or the secret deals at Teheran and Yalta) are ignored or swept aside.
Following the First World War, Harry Elmer Barnes and other
historians, both in the victor nations and the vanquished, "revised" the
official version of the winners by gaining access to the secret records
of the wartime governments - their ministers, generals and diplomats.
The documents demonstrated that there was a very big difference between
what the leaders were saying in public and what they were doing in
private. The Revisionists demonstrated that millions of men had gone to
their deaths for ideals at which those in power secretly scoffed. A
great and healthy revulsion against war and warmakers set in and
Americans set their faces against further "crusades" across the oceans.But the upheaval which the First
World War had brought about in Europe and Asia and the short-sighted
settlements which the victors had imposed on the defeated nations led to
another war. This time the ruling Establishments in the victor nations
determined that there would be no "revision" of their wartime
propaganda, no "bringing history into accord with the facts." The men
who wrote the authorized histories of the Second World War were tied to
their society's ruling elites-both public and private- just as closely
as the court historians of bygone days. They enjoyed privileged access
to the records, many of which they had helped create themselves with
their wartime roles in propaganda and intelligence. Dissident
historians- the "Revisionists" - were excluded.It is crucial, however, that we
gain an understanding of the actual origins, course and consequences of
World War II and of all modern wars. "Good guys" vs. "bad guys" history
reinforces wartime propaganda. Carried over into peacetime it stands in
the way of reconciliation and fosters an atmosphere in which all the
world's conflicts are viewed as epochal struggles between Good and Evil.
It is the Revisionists' aim to understand wars, not to continue to
fight them in endless polemical battles. Revisionists search for the
underlying causes of wars, hold the self-serving claims of all parties
to those struggles to critical review, and investigate the role of often
shadowy third parties that sought to profit from wars waged ostensibly
on behalf of nation-states.
Revisionist scholars are working in many nations. The movement defies
political classification on the conventional "left-right" spectrum.
Revisionists are dedicated first to discovering the truth that is often
hidden away in secret archives that governments and established powers
everywhere would seal up in perpetuity. They are further dedicated to
the principle that citizens have a right to know what their governments
are actually doing behind the scenes.
The Revisionists are deeply concerned with the imposition of a
monolithic orthodoxy in any area of historical research. The
Revisionists have challenged, in particular, some of the most sacrosanct
dogmas of World War II propaganda, from the unmitigated evil and
aggressiveness of Germany, Japan, and their allies, to the unquestioning
acceptance of the so-called Holocaust in all its improbable details.
Revisionists have learned, and teach, that a misunderstanding of the
nature of conflicts between nations allows politicians, often fronting
for special interests, to lead us blindly into wars in which the great
majority of the citizenry has no real interest. The failure to properly
understand our own involvement in the European wars has involved
Americans in one crisis after another in the decades following World War
II, from Korea to Vietnam to Beirut. Each time the politicians have
assured us that we are repelling "aggression," staving off "bloodbaths,"
"fighting Communism" or "terrorism" or what have you. And each time the
interventions have ended not in victory, but in death, frustration, and
dishonor.
Still, special interests conjure up new Bad Guys, new devils. The
tangle of rivalries and hatreds that outside intervention has created in
the Middle East continues to provide our leaders with excuses for new
adventures, from the Persian Gulf to Libya. Will the kind of popular
hatred manufactured against foreign leaders like Khadafy or Khomeini
lure us into a new crusade? Or even into a catastrophic nuclear
conflict?
Not if the findings of Revisionists are heeded. Barnes and his
colleagues, and their successors, working from a deep conviction that
war is unnecessary, have demonstrated how specious were the
justifications and how injurious the results have been of the wars
America has blundered into over the past century. These wars have
diminished our freedoms, undermined our wealth and created a false
illusion of national rectitude.
The Revisionists are perhaps the only students of the past who have
heeded the warning of George Orwell that: "Who controls the past
controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." By
wrestling control of the past from established interests and returning
it to those who lived and suffered it, Revisionists may make possible a
secure and prosperous future for all of us.
If we can face up to and acknowledge the existence of the underlying causes of war and what our own
leaders have done to encourage war, prolong it and make it more
destructive than at any other time in history, we may be on our way to
achieving the just and lasting peace that every person of good will
desires.
Tom Marcellus was formerly the Director of the Institute for Historical Review.
For a current catalog, with a complete listing of books and audio and video tapes, send one dollar to:
Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659

Historians as Tools
of the Global EliteCourt Historians Regurgitate New Versions of Prewar and Wartime Propaganda Dressed Up as History

“TO
THE VICTOR BELONG THE SPOILS,” the old saying goes. It might be
amended to say, “To the victor belongs the privilege of writing
history.” Julius Caesar certainly recognized that when he wrote in
Commentaries on the Gallic War, Book I, that “It is the law of war for
conquerors to deal with the conquered at their pleasure”—and that, of
course, included the writing of “court” history. Another writer, a
diplomat and scientist, Benjamin Franklin, had his own twist on the
subject, declaring in Poor Richard’s Almanac that, “Historians relate,
not so much what is done, as what they would have believed [by the
people].” This distortion of history is what Revisionists are fighting
against.

BY MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER

In
the years following both World War I and World War II when real
historians such as Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes and his colleague dared to
suggest that the postwar histories, written by the victors, were hardly
more than the product of “court historians” essentially regurgitating
new versions of prewar and wartime propaganda dressed up as “history,”
Barnes and his fellow Revisionists were defamed as “conspiracy
theorists” and worse.

However,
with even the most cursory review of the role that many eminent and
“respected” American postwar historians played as top-level
intelligence officers during World War II, for example, one cannot help
but wonder how reliable their academic accounts of the history of that
period were.

In 1987 Yale University professor Robin W. Winks (now deceased) published his award-winning 607-page book, Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961
(New Haven: Yale University Press) outlining the very substantial (but
until then largely little-known) details surrounding the involvement
of American academics in the activities of the CIA and its World War II
predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).

“Each government accuses the other
of perfidy, intrigue and ambition, as a
means of heating the imagination of
their respective nations, and incensing
them to hostilities”
—THOMAS PAINE

In
his book, Winks provided readers with an eye-opening list of the names
of some—but far from all—American academics (largely historians) who
served in the OSS during World War II and were therefore part of (and
directing) America’s official covert intelligence operations against the
enemy. The list is remarkable and demonstrates that there is reason to
suggest the ties between academia and the U.S. government propaganda
apparatus are even more profound than Harry Elmer Barnes may have
suspected.

Many
of the names will be immediately familiar. The names constitute a
veritable laundry list of those whom Barnes quite correctly called “the
court historians” and whom—by virtue of their wartime roles in the
propaganda operations of the OSS—revolutionary statesman Thomas Paine
might have been foreshadowing. He wrote of war-time propagandists in
The Rights of Man declaring: “Each government accuses the other of
perfidy intrigue and ambition, as a means of heating the imagination of
their respective nations, and incensing them to hostilities”—not only
during wartime but afterward as well. And that is why there is the need
for Revisionist scholars to continue fighting to bring history into
accord with the facts, wartime and postwar propaganda notwithstanding.

Spies Turned ‘Court Historians’

The
World War II-era Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was the forerunner
of the modern CIA, and also the spawning ground for a host of American
academics who rose to prominence in postwar years. Most of these
ex-spies—with little deviation—touted the “official”
U.S.-British-Zionist intelligence propaganda version of the events that
led up to the war, accounts of the war’s conduct and the twists of
history that followed. Not for nothing did such independent historians
as Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes refer to these characters as the “court
historians.”

Above, Herbert Marcuse: It wasn’t “Hanoi Jane” Fonda or Huey
Newton and the Black Panthers who invented the ideas and slogans that
came to be identified with the “drop out” generation. It was Marcuse,
drawing on Hegel, Marx and Sigmund Freud, who introduced the theory of
“the great refusal,” meaning that individuals should reject and subvert
the existing social order as repressive and conformist without waiting
for a revolution. Marcuse left Germany one step ahead of the Gestapo
to bring his “enlightenment” to America. He taught philosophy at
various U.S. universities until his death in 1979.

Among the ex-OSS spies who became
influential postwar arbiters of “official” history included (1) Arthur
Schlesinger Jr., (2) Carl William Blegen and (3) James Phinney Baxter.

What
follows is the list of OSS-spawned academics taken from Winks’s book,
including the sometimes-glowing descriptions that Winks provided:

James Phinney Baxter III, president of Williams College;

Carl Blegen, professor of history, University of Cincinnati, and a leading authority on American immigration and ethnic history;

Crane Brinton, professor of history, Harvard University, perhaps the leading historian of ideas on the European front;

Dr. Frederick Burkhardt, director of the American Council of Learned Societies;

John Christopher, professor of history, University of
Rochester, who with Brinton and Robert Lee Wolff wrote an extremely
influential (and extremely successful) textbook, History of
Civilization, immediately after the war, a text that became one of two
that dominated the market for the immediate postwar generation of
undergraduate students. “Brinton, Christopher and Wolff,” as the text
was known, reflected the synoptic view the authors developed while in
the OSS, and it would not be totally revised until 1983;

Dr. Ray Cline, who wrote a first-rate volume in the
official history of World War II and then returned to the intelligence
profession. He became the CIA’s deputy director for intelligence from
1962 to 1966;

John Clive, professor of history, Harvard University, a major figure in 19th century British studies;

Gordon Craig, professor of history, Princeton and later
Stanford universities, author of the leading books on the role of the
military in German history;

John Curtiss, professor of history, Duke University, an authority on France;

Harold C. Deutsch, professor of history, University of
Minnesota, also an important figure in the development of modern German
history in the United States;

Dr. Allan Evans, a medievalist from Yale who remained with the Department of State at the end of the war;

John K. Fairbank, professor of Chinese history at Harvard University, the leading sinologist of his generation;

Franklin L. Ford, professor of history, Harvard University, and the dean of Harvard College during the student disorders of the late 1960s;

Felix Gilbert, historian at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, an elegant diplomatist;

S. Everett Gleason, who worked with William Langer in the OSS and after, and returned to become the State Department’s historian;

Moses Hadas, professor of classics, Columbia University, who wrote on the expansion of the Roman empire;

Samuel W. Halperin, professor of history, University of Chicago, and after the war editor of The Journal of Modern History;

Henry B. Hill, professor of history, University of Kansas, who developed British history there and later at Wisconsin;

Hajo Holborn, Sterling professor of history, Yale
University, who worked on occupation policy for Germany at the end of
the war and wrote on the history of military occupation, becoming a
dominant figure in the training of postwar Germanists;

H. Stuart Hughes, professor of history, Harvard
University, who moved on from where Crane Brinton had left off in
European intellectual (and especially Italian) history, and
unsuccessfully ran for the House of Representatives in Massachusetts;

Sherman Kent, who left Yale to preside over ONE, the Office of National Estimates, at the CIA;

Clinton Knox, who also left the historical profession, becoming ambassador to Guinea;

Leonard Krieger, who returned from the OSS to become a
professor at Yale and then of German intellectual history at the
University of Chicago;

William L. Langer, the outstanding European diplomatic historian of his generation;

Val Lorwin, professor of history, University of Oregon,
and the nation’s leading authority on the Low Countries;

Herbert Marcuse, who moved from history to philosophy
at Brandeis and the University of California, and from the
contemplative life to that of guru to the student revolt during the war
in Vietnam;

Henry Cord Meyer, professor of history, Pomona College, another leading Germanist who left Yale for the West Coast;

Saul K. Padover, professor at the New School for Social
Research, authority on Jefferson and democratic thought, and a pioneer
lecturer on American history at a wide range of universities
overseas;

Michael B. Petrovich, professor of history, University of Wisconsin, who developed Russian studies there;

David H. Pinckney, professor of history, first at the
University of Missouri and then the University of Washington, a major
force in French history and, like Brinton, Craig, Fairbank, Holborn,
Langer, and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., a president of the American
Historical Association, perhaps the highest honor the discipline can
bestow on one of its own;

David M. Potter, professor of history, Yale University
(and later at Stanford), who with Ralph Gabriel and Norman Holmes
Pearson firmly established American studies at Yale;

Conyers Read, professor of history, University of
Pennsylvania, an authority on Elizabethan England and the prime mover
behind the Council on Foreign Relations in Philadelphia;

Henry L. Roberts, professor of history, Columbia
University, who followed Geroid Robinson in developing a front-rank
Russian studies program at that institution;

Elspeth D. Rostow, University of Texas, who with her husband,

Walt Whitman Rostow, worked out major interpretations on American foreign policy;

John E. Sawyer, economic historian who left Yale to become president of Williams College and then of the Mellon Foundation;

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., professor of history,
Harvard University, polymath, adviser to and historian for the Kennedys
before his transition to a Schweitzer chair at the City University of
New York;

Bernadotte E. Schmitt, who after the war lived in retirement, lauded as the leading historian of the causes of WWI;

Carl E. Schorske, professor of history at Wesleyan and then Princeton University, an authority on European intellectual history;

Raymond Sontag, professor of history, University of
California at Berkeley, the first of the old OSS team to publicly remind
the student generation of the 1960s of his service and of why
academics had felt it appropriate to engage in intelligence work, which
he had

Wayne S. Vucinich, professor of history, continued to do as a consultant to ONE;

L.S. Stavrianos, professor of history, Northwestern
University, who carried the idea of global history further than any
other scholar, in a series of notable texts;

Richard P. Stebbins, a man Sherman Kent felt could turn
out more work of high quality than anyone else in his shop, who became
director of the Council on Foreign Relations;

Paul R. Sweet, who also remained with the State Department, in change of its official histories and archives.

Alexander Vucinich, professor of history, San Jose
State University, a leading authority on Eastern Europe; Stanford
University, who covered the same waterfront;

Paul L. Ward, who became the executive director of the American Historical Association;

Albert Weinberg, technically a political scientist,
although the author of a fine historical analysis of American imperial
expansion, who remained in government work after the war;

John H. Wuorinen, professor of history, Columbia University, who covered Scandinavia and in particular Finland;

T. Cuyler Young, professor of archeology, Princeton
University, who, with Richard Frye at Harvard (who also was in the
OSS), pioneered Iranian studies in the United States.

This list, needless to say,
is highly revealing, if only because it demonstrates how closely
American academics have been linked to the intelligence community, and
in this case, during wartime. The truth is that—despite the passing of
decades—nothing has changed. The American academic community has
consistently been influenced by—and in many respects, has been a part
of—the high-level policy-makers, war-planners, and other elements of the
high level ruling elite.

of the Federal Republic of GermanyIn a speech that he gave at the gala dinner of the Jewish World Congress in New York on 11 September 2000, Joschka Fischer, former Federal German Minister of Foreign Affairs, emphasized that he understands “how vitally important it is to preserve awareness of our responsibility for preserving Remembrance (of ‘Holocaust’). Remembrance is a constant obligation for a democraticGermany. It must remain a perpetual obligation in future as well.” Elaborating on this implied obligation for all Germans for all time, he went on to explain: “We know that we cannot abandon our history and put it behind us. All those who attempted to drop penance have perished on the shoals of Auschwitz and German guilt for Shoa -- and justly so. An ancient Jewish proverb teaches us that the desire to forget merely prolongs our exile. “The secret of salvation is eternal Remembrance! -- Remembrance primarily of the six million murdered sons and daughters of the Jewish Nation, but also of the other victims of Hitler’s war and racism and of National Socialist viciousness.”Thus, Fischer declared “Remembrance” to be the foundation on which the Federal Republic is built. He has endowed us with the following creed: “The origin and inherent nature of our present German democracy are conceivable only against the backgroud of Holocaust. In 1933, Germany began its descent into atrocity with its contemptuous treatment of the Jews, with a brutal denial of their human dignity and human rights. These German Jews were citizens of the Reich, many of whom courageously sacrificed their lives for their German homeland during the First World War. The lesson of this is clear and unmistakable: The dignity of mankind must never again be violated. Respect for human dignity is the minimum requirement for the civilized coexistence of nations. This imperative forms the first article of our Consitution, which reads: ‘Man’s dignity is inviolable. It is the obligation of state power to observe and protect all human dignity.’ This is the very foundation of our democracy. This is the legacy that the victims of the Nazi terror, especially the murdered Jews, have bequeathed to us Germans; andwe have accepted this obligation... Germany is aware of its special historical obligation to insure the security of the state of Israel and its right to exist. This obligation will continue to be firm and unalterable for us Germans. It cannot be relativized. In future as well as the present, it will continue to define the unique character of our relations with Israel. Israel can rely on a democratic Germany as an undaunted friend and ally for all time. This is our moral obligation, and this is the firm political will of all the generations that inherit the difficult legacy of German history. Our watchword will always be: guard Remembrance and accept the responsibility that goes with it.”[1] For Elan Steinberg, Speaker of the Jewish World Congress, Fischer’s words were “an estraordinary acknowledgment of guilt and responsibility.” Fischer had done more than just apologize on behalf of Germany -- he also demanded that his own generation, which was born after the War, take responsibility for events of the past. In December 2002, President Johannes Rau, following a visit by his Israeli colleague Moshe Katzav, emphasized the “special obligation of Germany for the security of Israel,” stating “...we as Germans have a very great responsibility, towards Israel , a responsibility greater than that of any other country.[2]We must do everything in our power to ensure that Israel can live free of terror and within secure borders.” This statement might just as easily originated with an Israeli politician -- except that it would not have sounded so presumptuous coming from an Israeli! The issuance of such portentous blank checks by German politicians to third parties, in particular the nation of Israel, makes sense only if one is aware of the political foundations on which the Federal Republic of Germany is built -- the state in whose name Fischer, Rau and their colleagues were speaking.The “Auschwitz Lie”and “Sole Responsibility for the War” In his work dealing with today’s basic issues, Sind Gedanken noch frei? (Are Thoughts Still Free), published in Munich in 2001, the author presented the thesis that the underlying legal foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany is characterized by two basic principles. These are acknowledgment of sole guilt for the Second World War and acknowledgment of guilt for the genocidal murder of millions of innocent persons during the Third Reich, primarily on racial grounds.In the Federal Republic, both acknowledgments enjoy the status of indisputable fact; and expressing skepticism about their validity can entail serious legal consequences. In order to understand this unique phenomenon of national self-castigation, we have to return to 1945 and review essential aspects of Germany’s “liberation.” Walter Lippmann, the son of German Jews born in New York, was one of the most influential American journalists and authors of books from the 1920s until the 1950s. In 1920 he became the chief editor of the New York World and in 1931 he gained international prominence as a columnist with the Herald Tribune. Writing on the subject of total defeat of an enemy, Lipmann declared that, in addition to the necessary occupation of an enemy country and criminal trials and executions of its vanquished leaders in “war crimes trials,” the most important guarantor of total and permanent victory could be accomplished only when and if“the vanquished are subjected to a thoroughgoing re-education process. The obvious method for accomplishing this is the implantation of the version of history as viewed by the victor, into the mind of the vanquished. The transplantation of the ‘moral’ categories of the war propaganda of the victorious country into the consciousness of the vanquished is of decisive significance in this regard... Re-education cannot be considered truly successful until the war propaganda of the victors has found its way into the history books of the vanquished and is accepted as true by subsequent generations.”[3]After 1945 these theoretical plans for “re-education” – a euphemism for brainwashing – were successfully put into practice in Germany by the United States.These guidelines for re-education were printed in a noncommercial booklet entitled What to do with Germany and distributed by the Special Services Division for Psychological Warfare of the US Army, and they are frequently quoted in secondary literature. “Re-education will be required equally for young and old, and it must not be limited to the classroom.The persuasive power of dramatic presentation must be exploited, and movies can be used to greatest effect here... Under the guidance of the ‘International University,’the greatest authors, producers and stars will dramatize the infinite evil of Nazism and contrast it with the beauty and simplicity of a Germany that is no longer preoccupied with militarism and marching in step. They will have the mission of presenting an attractive picture of democracy. In addition, radio will penetrate individual homes with discussions as well as undisguised lectures.Authors, dramatists, publishers and printers must all be subjected to constant testing by the “International University”, since they are all educators. All non-democratic publications must be suppressed from the outset. Only after the German way of thinking has had opportunity to be reenforced in the new ideals may opposing views be allowed, when we are confident that the (Nazi) virus has no further medium in which to grow. This will provide still greater immunity in future. The re-education process must cover and permeate all Germany. Even workers should receive simplified lessons in democracy, in their leisure time.Summer vacations and opportunities for higher education of the masses must also support this endeavor... The ‘International University’ is in the best position to monitor and control the details of the German education system: the curricula of schools, choice of teachers and textbooks – in short, all pedagogical matters. We need a command structure for this aggressive re-education. Outsanding German students will be given opportunities to continue their education in our schools. They will return to Germany as teachers and found a new cultural tradition in conjunction with an international sense of citizenship. Insofar as possible, the professsors should be German liberals and democrats. The introduction of ‘aliens’ could have a stimulating effect but must be kept to a minimum, since it must not lead to our losing control.Every imaginable kind of intellectual influence that is compatible with democratic culture should be placed in the service of re-education. The roles of churches, movies, theatre, radio, press and labor unions are all specifically called for here... Re-education will replace military conscription, and will be compulsory for every German, just as compulsory military service formerly was. Our task is to reestablish freedom and peace -- the freedom that was born on Mount Sinai and lay in the crib of Bethlehem. The peace whose tender youth was spent in England; whose iron schoolmaster was France; whose young manhood was spent in the US; and which, if we do our part, is destined to live prevail all over the world!”[4]The prerequisite for carrying out this re-education was German acceptance of the doctrine of “double collective guilt.” Since the founding of the Federal Republic, this has been incessantly emphasized and repeated by politicians and leading intellectuals.This prompted the political scientist Theodor Eschenburg to describe the foundation of the West German state in these words:“Unquestioning acknowledgment of the sole guilt of Hitler (in starting the War) is clearly a basic founding principle of the Federal Republic.” The journalist Sebastian Haffner (real name Raimund Pretzel), who immigrated to Britain in 1938, also shared this view. As a persistent advocate of partitioning Germany, he was decisive in “re-educating” the German nation. According to Haffner, anyone who challenges the status quo threatens the peace in Europe. (By “status quo” he meant the national-pedagogical concept of history that was considered positive by the victorious powers.)In his address to the Federal Parliament of 9 November 1988, President Philipp Jenninger acknowledged that“every political question in the Federal Republic orbits about a conscious awareness of Auschwitz.”Former District Court President Rudolf Wassermann reaffirmed this view in 1994: “Whoever denies the truth about National Socialist extermination camps is abandoning the foundations on which the Federal Republic is built... Whoever denies Auschwitz attacks more than the human dignity of the Jews -- he threatens the very basis of our society’s credulity.”[5]Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who in Spiegel magazine (Vol. 28/1987) designated Auschwitz as “Our Reason for Existance” 20 years ago, declared in the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitungon 18 February 1999:“Every democracy has a basis, a foundation. For France this is 1789, for the USA it is the Declaration of Independence, and for Spain it is the Spanish Civil War. Well, for Germany it is Auschwitz. It can only be Auschwitz. In my eyes, the remembrance of Auschwitz, of “Never-again Auschwitz” is the only possible foundation for the new Republic in Berlin.” These acknowledgments by influential personalities, derived over several decades, introduce the logical second step in our theory. The “historically established facts” of Germany’s sole guilt for the War and Germany’s “policy of genocide” (meaning collective guilt) form the basis on which the Federal Republic of Germany was founded. They also represent the essential factor for determining whether a given opinion may be freely expressed in the Federal Republic of Germany: that is, whether the opinion is legally irrelevant, or whether it violates one or both of the basic acknowledged “facts” and therefore does not enjoy the constitutional protection of free speech. The situation in Austria is very similar.The party bearing sole responsibility the outbreak the Second World War is as irrefutable in the Berlin Republic as the “fact” of the murder of six million Jews (no fewer than six million!) by Germans. One is not allowed to discuss such inviolable historical “facts.” One simply does not discuss them if one does not want to run the risk of being charged with “understatement”, “relativization” or “denial,” all of which are criminal acts in the Federal Republic.These “facts” are “offenkundig” or manifestly obvious and self-evident, hence they need not be proven, as do other crimes. This double collective guilt of the German nation – acknowledgment of sole responsiility for the Second World War and systematic genocide of Jews -- has become the intellectual content of historical awareness hereabouts. It is not surprising that at nearly every wreath-laying, treaty signing or or state visit by a Federal Republic politician this very same reason for our national existence is repeated. Even on inappropriate occasions! At the Durban World Conference on Racism, Discrimination and Xenophobia in September 2001, Joschka Fischer, as official representative of his country, placed great stress on the following observation: “The most terrible atrocity of the 20th Century took place in my country, the genocide of six million European Jews as well as Roma and Sinti gypsies. Remembrance of this deed must not be relativized, and the responsibility for it will affect Germany’s policies forever. This is why Germany cannot accept understatement, relativization or denial of Holocaust. Germany must vigorously oppose and repress such things.”[6]Germany’s “Double Collective Guilt” is the central point and pivot of Federal Republic historiography.It has long been applied to more that just the period of the Third Reich. In the above mentioned speech, History Genius Fischer promptly confessed German “guilt” for crimes committed in Africa during the Wilhelmenian era as well. He introduced his gallant confession on behalf of Germany with these equally gallant words: “I would also like to express thanks to our host, the South African government. Under its own volition, this country has succeeded in peacefully liberating itself from a dictatorship based on racism, succeeded in finding its way to a more just society. The courage of the South Africans to come together despite all scars of the past should be an inspiration for us at this conferenc.”[7]All roads lead to Auschwitz -- and all roads come from there as well, if one is to believe the philosophy of history that is officially propagated by the Federal Republic. Thus, “Auschwitz” and “War Guilt” form the intellectual as well as official foundation of this country. Doesn’t a nation’s concept of history reflect its image of itself? If this is true, and we believe that it is, then “...this systematic cultivation of a collective guilt complex is destroying our national consciousness. It is bringing about the intellectual de-nationalization of our people and turning them into a well-fed population of fellahs, a German variant of mass-man. The cultivation of this type is far advanced In our kindergartens, primary schools, high schools, colleges and above all, in the mass media.”[8]More than any other organizations, the “System” or “Establishment” political parties are the bearers and agents of this policy of denationalization, which, we assume, does not displease the victorious powers. Such a pervasive denationalization has long been the official policy of the Federal Republic. In our socalled republic, all tendencies toward nationalism are dismissed by the media and government representatives as “Germanic claptrap” or even more strongly disparaged, often in ways that are truly grotesque. One example of this occurred several years ago, with a disgraceful attempt to change the inscription “Dem Deutschen Volke” (Dedicated to the German Nation) above the entrance of the Reichstag to “Der Bevölkerung” (Dedicated to The Population.) Another such example was that of the “fat hen.” Ornithologists are not the only ones asking themselves about that fat round Bundesadler (Federal Eagle) in the plenary chamber of the Parliament Building. If he were a real bird, it is unlikely he would even be able to fly, much less soar majestically through the air. And yet, this grotesque symbol was highly praised by Wolfgang Thierse. He observed that the highly stylized bird was so peaceful and unaggressive that it was an appropriate symbol for the political consensus prevailing in the Federal Republic. In this point at least, one can hardly contradict the Federal President. The problem is that, while other nations of the world display the eagle as a mighty raptor on their emblem, a symbol of pride, dignity and freedom, the ladies and gentlemen in the Berlin Parliament gaze upon a ridiculous caricature that symbolizes the exact opposite of a proud eagle.This country’s hostility toward Inländer (natives) is another remarkable Federal phenomenon that is found in Germany. Among Germans – but only among Germans -- patriotism is passé, something to be rejected and eradicated.In the Berlin republic, love of country is officially discouraged. Here there is ever increasing stigmatization of art and literature that oppose or cirticize the present repressive regime. Official stigmatization necessitates the suppression of artistic and intellectual dissent that might influence public opinion with images as well as written or oral literary art. The opinions suppressed for contradicting the educational theories and interests of the German Establishment seldom “endanger the youth” or “incite the masses“ in any meaningful sense of those terms. Instead, they express opinions that challenge the monopoly of the opinion cartel -- certain powerful political and economic interests and institutions.[9]In order to gain legal advantage over those who express politically incorrect opinions, these institutions had to be presented to the public in pseudo legalistic fashion. This was accomplished in April of 1994, when the Bundesgerichtshof or Federal Constitutional Court made the incontestable ruling that those who questioned the socalled “Auschwitz Lie” (concerning homicidal gassings of millions of Jews during the Third Reich) were no longer protected by constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and opinion. The organization “Human Rights Watch,” which according to Amnesty International is the second largest human rights organization in the world, commented: “The Court’s ruling appears to unduly restrict guaranteed freedoms of speech and expression.”[10] In this context, he word “unduly” is quite conspicuous: Human Rights Watch was remarking that the Court has limited these protected rights of freedom of speech and opinion in an exaggerated manner. Consequently, freedom of scientific research in the Federal Republic has been seriously damaged by misuse of the criminal law to protect vested political interests and socalled historical facts. In a long and detailed letter to the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung dated 8 September 1994, the historian Ernst Nolte demonstrated rare courage by stating that he is unable to refute the arguments of several Revisionists regarding the technical impossibility of mass murder using Zyklon B, since he is not a natural scientist. The eminent historian went on to describe how, on numerous occasions, he has come across documents that were generally and officially accepted as “undeniably authentic,” and which he treated as such, but which after forensic examination were exposed as falsifications. Nolte ended his letter with the observation that all questions concerning authenticity and feasibility have to be treated as objects for scientific investigation. For this reason, he has pleaded for unbiased consideration of the arguments of the “Auschwitz Revisionists.” As a result of official governmental policy, there is no longer freedom to investigate and discuss Auschwitz, “Holocaust” and World War II. The following sobering assessment, and the implications that go with it, were published in a letter to the editor of Welt magazine that was published on 4 November 1994. “No serious reader doubts that Jews were persecuted during the Third Reich. In a nation of laws, however, researchers must be free to investigate what is credible and what is not credible, what is scientifically possible and what is not.

German-Jews Against International Atrocity Propaganda (1933)

Posted on04/04/2013byjustice4germans

Our Struggle for Germany Against the Atrocity Propaganda from abroad

(translation of original German-Jewish Magazine article)

“The columns of a certain foreign press is filled with reports of
alleged atrocities of the German national survey also against German
Jews. The German National Socialist press reported the news, pointing to
excerpts with the evidence, that all these sick, disparaging, insulting
and anti-German publications, saying these were the works of Jewish
origin. In dramatic fashion, reacting to the horrific reports of the
foreign media, the German press followed suit with increasingly
threatening protests, in a dangerous interaction.

With the worsening tensions culminating in the highest of drama,
knots were tied in Germany’s foreign policy, as well as, for German
Jewry. An open and honest word, spoken by the leaders of foreign
Governments beyond our borders, might have dispelled the whole nightmare
quickly and changed world opinion about Germany, and would thereby,
have eased the tensions, and mitigated or lifted the pressure brought to
bear upon the German Jews.
Efforts of huge proportions have put German Jews in this situation.
We became only slowly aware, as a result of insufficient information,
the extent to which the atrocity reports had made an impression on
public opinion around the world: we Jews are unfortunately used to that,
as the Anti-Jewish press misrepresents many facts, presenting Judaism
in a poor light; but that serious Jewish figures and organizations of
foreign countries believed in these atrocities, and therefore, proceeded
to actions against Germany, as was evident in the major newspapers. The
Central Association, recognized that German Judaism, once again, as so
often before, and which is closely connected with the German national
issues, had to take this matter in its own hand.Therefore, the Central Association on 24 March, provided the German and the world press, the following declaration:

“The Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish
Faith, which is the largest organization of the 565,000 German Jews on
patriotic German soil, makes the following statement regarding the
events of the last days:
Following press reports in German papers, which were then
disseminated by various foreign newspapers, which claimed that mutilated
Jewish corpses were found at the entrance to the Jewish cemetery
Berlin-Weißensee, and that Jewish girls in public places had been
forcibly rounded up, and that hundreds of German Jews had arrived in
Geneva, including many children, nine tenths of which were severely
abused. All such claims are completely fictitious. The Central
Association emphatically states that for such irresponsible distortions,
which we strongly condemn, German Judaism cannot be held responsible.
For weeks now, the German people finds itself in a political reversal
of epic proportions. This has resulted in instances of political acts
of revenge and has also led to violence against Jews. The Government of
the Reich, as the state governments, have striven successfully, and as
quickly as possible, to restore calm and order. The command of the
Reichs-Chancellor, to refrain from individual actions, has been
effective.
We have been met with certain obvious anti-Semitic objectives in the
various economic and living areas in recent times, which give us serious
concern. The Central Association still regards this struggle as a
German domestic matter. We are, however, convinced that the equality of
the German Jews, who have also earned this, both in wartime and peace,
by the shedding of their blood and with their deeds domestically, will
not again be lifted, and that they are, as before, inextricably
connected with the German Fatherland, and that they, along with all
other Germans of good will, will be able to work together, as in the
past, for the advancement of the Fatherland.”

Hours later this statement was printed in hundreds of German and
foreign newspapers, especially in England and America. Thus, the first
dam was erected against the flood of atrocity stories, in defense of the
honour of Germany. The foreign-interested parties of the atrocity
propaganda were thereby put on notice that there was serious opposition
to their Anti-German campaign, and so, for a short time, they
intensified their campaign against Germany. A concentrated action of the
German Jewry undertook these efforts. A compilation of the
declarations, which we provide elsewhere in this paper, provide an
overview. But a number of direct measures undertaken by the Central
Association in partnership with other Jewish organizations in England
and America were far more effective than these declarations.
Personalities with non-partisan insights, within English and American
Judaism and their leaders in the field of communications of these
countries received information directly from the Central Association.
First and foremost, the Central Association directed its efforts at
the planned mass meetings in New York on 27 March, to effect a repeal.
But because the time was short, this was effort was unsuccessful, and so
an attempt was made to curb the hateful tendency of the speeches and
speakers towards Germany. Thus, most of them were people of various
religions, parties and ideologies providing only expressions of a
feeling of community, to discuss how people of the most diverse
religions, parties and world views, throughout history and in all
nations together, have at times have failed to respect or have
prohibited those of other faiths, from the free expression of their
faith, beliefs and views.
It must be described as very fortunate that Ernst Wallach, one of the
Deputy of Chairmen of the Central Association was in New York City for a
few days. He, who was best known in the official German circles of
America, campaigned with the highest energy against the atrocity
propaganda. In closest consultation with the German officials, he
undertook of his own accord, a series of steps, including by cable
telegrams and overseas phone calls, bringing about a stark reduction of
public opinion pressure regarding the (alleged) dangers for German
Judaism. Interviews, he gave to the big American newspapers in New York,
were reprinted in numerous German papers and on Monday (27th) formed,
so to speak, the first bright spot in an otherwise very gloomy
atmosphere. And with a sigh of relief and great satisfaction, the German
public learned of the success of the actions of the Central Association
and its friends in this urgent situation, in both the press reports and
radio broadcasts on Tuesday. Even now, Ernst Wallach continues his
efforts to detoxify the American public, regarding its thinking, with
respect to Germany.
At the same time, another Deputy Chairman of the Central Association,
Dr. Ludwig Tietz worked with the approval of the competent German
authorities in England. It is exciting to observe now, how the English
press, in light of truthful information from day to day, behaves more
civilly towards Germany. But the limits of other possible efforts for
German Judaism and all of the Fighters for Truth within Germany and
abroad, lie there where the atrocity propaganda, born out of the alleged
Jewish experience, is only a backdrop for the enforcement of
Anti-Germanic foreign policy or economic actions. With people of sincere
ethical intentions, but who have been falsely informed, and have
thereby wrongly taken a position against Germany, one can now reach
understanding on the basis of truth. and one can sense a conversion on
moral basis. But with the “special interest groups” for whom other
values and considerations are at stake in this game, other than the
existence of ten or even a hundred-thousand German Jews or the Jewish
existence in Germany, nothing can be achieved by these means. This is
where the possibilities of German Jewry ends.
And now it is being asked of us German Jews, that we be stronger than
these powers, and that we should help prevent anti-German propaganda,
by those which promote it for their own interests. One has created a
fiction, as if the secret backers and beneficiaries of these Anti-German
campaigns are Jews, and as if such a bond of unity and inter-dependency
amongst the Jews of the world exists, and as if with a wink of an eye,
Judaism in any individual country, could cause all Jews to suddenly do
something, or not do something, which would be useful to, or detrimental
to, another country. This “World Jewry International” does not exist!
But one can compare – It is now nearly twenty years since the
beginning of World War I brought about an outrageous baiting and
atrocity propaganda campaign against the German people. No vulgarity, no
opprobrium was mean and shameful enough, which would not be introduced
to the world as German character trait. The German counter-propaganda
campaign gave out millions and millions to uproot this propaganda.
Dozens of agents of the German Government tried in every place and
position, by establishing newspapers, sending out millions of pamphlets
and flyers regarding the truth about Germany. Their success was very
minimal because the interests of those warmongering nations demanded
that the atrocity stories be believed.
It is probably already forgotten now that after the war [first world
war], when only a few years had passed, that the British Foreign
Secretary in the House of Commons conceded that the “mutilation of
bodies” in Germany story was a ‘war lie’. And here we are talking about
the German Volk, a community of 65 million, with all imaginable
intelligence and propaganda outlets, and with a huge diplomatic and
press apparatus. For many years, this enormous array of strength, spirit
and money had to be used to fight against the atmosphere of hatred
towards Germany.
And one must be clear that of the 565,000 German-Jews, of which at
least 95 percent certainly had no “foreign connections”, knew no foreign
languages, and had no foreign newspapers to read, could suddenly act
maliciously against Germany when they were unable to achieve for
themselves in eight days, that which took the entire German Volk eight
years to achieve for themselves.
Here lies a so obvious error of judgment and injustice, of which we
are convinced, that it should be emphasized, in order to remove this
argument from any anti-Jewish agitation.”
(End)
The documents of our foreign activities are summarized in a memorandum, which we gladly provide our members upon request.C.V. -newspaper, vintage 1933, volume/issue 13, article by 30.3.1933, S. 2f = 106f.

(Translation by ‘Justice for Germans’)The above is posted in relation to my previous post: World War II started in 1933!RELATED and highly recommend reading: Under Two Flags – A German Jew Speaks Out About Hitler and NS Germany by Heinz Weichardt
“Under Two Flags”, an important personal testimonial along the same
lines as Benjamin H. Freedman’s “A Jewish Defector Warns America”. It is
the story of a German Jew who told the truth about Hitler, National
Socialism, the Nuremberg Laws, NS policies, and World War II, from his
own personal experience. Though subject to these laws, he had no
bitterness towards Hitler. This is a long, but very fascinating and
enlightening essay of over 30 pages, but I will provide an excerpt here.Weichardt stated:

“What was the situation of the German Jews at
that point? The first blow came from abroad. World Jewry declared war on
Germany. This was no idle threat. It is true that the Jews at
that time did not control the most powerful army in the world as in our
day when they exert nearly total domination over the deployment of
forces of the United States. But neither did the Germans possess
an army which could become a threat to anybody somewhat larger than
Grenada or maybe Panama. Germany faced the most disastrous economical
condition in its history and was completely dependent on foreign trade
in order just to feed the population. Any successful boycott of its
foreign trade would greatly exacerbate this already dangerous situation
and could even lead to widespread starvation. At first the German
reaction to riotous, Jewish-led, anti-German demonstrations abroad was a
government-decreed one day (!) boycott of Jewish stores which had been
marked overnight with stars of David. Never at any time, neither then
nor today, did National Socialists mark Jewish properties of any kind
with swastikas, because this would be considered a desecration of their
revered symbol. The most astonishing result of this boycott was the
revelation of the unbelievably large number of big and small businesses
in Jewish hands. Had the German- Jewish community voiced a unanimous and
vociferous protest against the action of their co-religionists
throughout the world, they would have avoided, in my opinion, some of
the harsher measures soon to come.
(Emphasis added)

My Comments:
In the article (above) I found the comment ”World Jewry
International does not exist!” most interesting, as there appears to be
so much evidence for it, as shown in my previous post “World War II
started in 1933″. There is no doubt that the program of National
Socialism posed a serious (mortal) threat to the interests of the
“International Bankers” who all describe themselves as being “Jewish”!
So that statement, in conjunction with the comments of Heinz Weichardt,
causes me to ask: could it be that a small group of self-described
“Jewish” Internationals Bankers invested a lot of time and resources in
an elaborate ‘PsyOp’ to convince the world (including other Jews) that
(1) it does exist, in order to (2) foster Zionism, as a tool, creating
anti-Jewish hatred and reprisals (as a reaction) against Jews of lower
status (to which they themselves, by virtue of the wealth, status and
influence would be immune), in order to (3) create enmity and to
embroil the world once again in war, as in WWII, and (4) to create
perpetual conflict in the future, from which they would reap huge
perpetual profits and even greater political control?
All of the above, of course, also brings up the question of ”Zionism
and the Third Reich”. Many assert that “Hitler was a Rothschild” (or
their agent), that “Hitler was a Jew”, that “Hitler created Israel”.
All of which is totally FALSE, as I have shown in previous posts, but I
will have more on the topic of Zionism in my next post!

"I
do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the
machinery of war; what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the
German refugees on their escape from Breslau."- Winston Churchill source

"Will there be room for [the German refugees, fleeing before the Red army]
in what is left of Germany? We have killed six or seven million Germans
and probably there will be an other million or so killed before the end
of the war."- Churchill, according to James F Byrnes' shorthand note of Plenary Session at Yalta, Feb. 7, 1945 (H S Truman Libr., Independence, Missouri).

I’ve often pondered what the concept “hell” entailed; what it means
to be living in the absence of “God,” the supreme creative force behind
all life. After reading Thomas Goodrich’s
breathtaking and physically nauseating analytical narrative of the burnt
offering – Holocaust – of Germany I now know what hell looks like and
how its inhabitants live and behave.
Relentless, reckless, and senseless hate of a magnitude so profound,
so immense, that I am still unable to understand it. And then the irony
of it all: that former inhabitants of Europe – Europeans – were responsible for inculcating hell in their own Heimat (homeland).
Who but the Devil itself could make a family turn on itself,
causing it to tear itself apart in such a murderous, inhuman fashion
that the victims are left unrecognizable after all the torture, abuse,
burning, systematic rape, and beatings subsides?
Who or what could inspire such madness? Thomas Goodrich answers this
question silently, subtly, but matter-of-factly – the Jews in Communist
Russia (the former USSR) and Capitalist America and Britain.Hellstorm is the type of book that changes lives. Goodrich
is the type of author who literally puts you, the reader, there in the
midst of hell. And what is this hell that he forces you to experience
page after page, torture after torture, and rape after rape? One that
has been all but forgotten; the only hell the modern age really knows:

The Allied Holocaust of National Socialist Germany

The Propaganda
Goodrich describes the Allied-induced inferno in more detail than
most need to know to gain an understanding of the depths of Allied
criminality and hatred, but the detail is necessary. Without the detail
no one will really know what hell is. Here’s a taste of it.
A German woman has her jaws forced open by the filthy brutish hands
of a Soviet serial rapist. He literally spits into her mouth and forces
her to swallow his salivary filth as he rams her body again . . . and
again . . . and again – until he’s satisfied fulfilling his oath to
Stalin and his chief Holocaust propagandist, Ilya Ehrenburg. Stalin
officially sanctioned the systematic rape of German women. Ilya
Ehrenburg, for his part as the lascivious advocator of rape of German
women, helped the Red Army perpetrate the largest gynocide and mass rape
in recorded history.
Commissar Ehrenburg’s pamphlet — distributed in the millions among
Red Army troops on the front lines of battle who were already
intoxicated with hate and vengefulness as a result of over two decades
of Bolshevik oppression, mass murder of their families and mass
collectivization — urged Soviet troops to plunder, rape and KILL.
The final paragraph of his pamphlet entitled “Kill” reads:

The Germans are not human beings. From
now on, the word ‘German’ is the most horrible curse. From now on, the
word ‘German’ strikes us to the quick. We have nothing to discuss. We
will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day… If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime…If you have already killed a German, then kill
another one — there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German
corpses. Don’t count the days, don’t count the kilometers. Count only
one thing: the number of Germans you have killed.

Kill the Germans!…

– Kill the Germans!

Kill!

And in another leaflet:

The Germans must be killed. One must kill them…Do you feel sick? Do you feel a nightmare in your breast?…Kill a German! If you are a righteous and conscientious man –

kill a German!

. . . Kill!

Ehrenburg, like any skilled propagandist with a penchant for revenge
and training in human psychology, appealed to the basest instincts of
his men, urging them to rape and wantonly slaughter other human beings
at will. There would be no penalties for this injustice as it was all
officially sanctioned.
Ehrenburg:

Kill! Kill!
In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living,
not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of
Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its
lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.

The Gynocide
I went into Goodrich’s book expecting to read little more than I
already knew about the worst gynocide and mass rape of womankind in
recorded history, but I was in for a shock. As an individual who looks
out for women’s interests, I was repeatedly overcome with emotion while
reading of the indescribable genital mutilations, deliberate and
systematic terrorism, gang-rape and wanton mass murder of women.
Goodrich:

From eight to eighty, healthy or ill,
indoors or out, in fields, on sidewalks, against walls, the spiritual
massacre of German women continued unabated. When even violated corpses
could no longer be of use, sticks, iron bars, and telephone receivers
were commonly rammed up their vaginas. (p. 155)

Brazilian German Leonora Cavoa:

“Suddenly I heard loud screams, and
immediately two Red Army soldiers brought in five girls. The Commissar
ordered them to undress. When they refused out of modesty, he ordered me
to do it to them, and for all of us to follow him. We crossed the yard
to the former works kitchen, which had been completely cleared out
except for a few tables on the window side. It was terribly cold, and
the poor girls shivered. In the large, tiled room some Russians were
waiting for us, making remarks that must have been very obscene, judging
from how everything they said drew gales of laughter. The Commissar
told me to watch and learn how to turn the Master Race into whimpering
bits of misery.”

The horror that ensued nearly defies written description, as no written description can actually make a reader of either sex feel and genuinely know
the pain and suffering inflicted in this neverending horror show. The
victims’ pain and suffering must have seemed like hours and hours . . .
an entire lifetime . . . I can’t imagine. I try not to imagine it
because about 2,000 women in the Nemmersdorf area alone suffered a
similar fate.

“. . . Now two Poles came in, dressed
only in their trousers, and the girls cried out at their sight. They
quickly grabbed the first of the girls, and bent her backwards over the
edge of the table until her joints cracked. I was close to passing out
as one of them took his knife and, before the very eyes of the other
girls, cut off her right breast. He paused for a moment, then cut off
the other side. I have never heard anyone scream as desperately as that
girl. After this operation he drove his knife into her abdomen several
times, which again was accompanied by the cheers of the Russians.”

Stop.
Picture it.
Imagine it.
Live it.
Force yourself to see your own body mutilated in similar fashion;
force yourself to picture a knife plunging into your abdomen again . . .
and again . . . your short lifetime come to this end: you know you are
about to die. You are being murdered; your body brutally tortured by a
mob of brutal sadists. Try to imagine the horror and the helplessness
you would feel as your person was mutilated and your very life bleeding
away on a table.
Can a human being really suffer a worse injustice than this?
Now . . . step back out of the scene and analyze this needless,
inhuman horror with the gift of hindsight. This victim was not just the
victim of these Red Army men, reduced to base animal instinct and
mentality, but she was also the victim of an ideology inspired by
Judaism and a Jewish propagandist named Ilya Ehrenburg.
Leonora:

The next girl cried for mercy, but in
vain—it even seemed that the gruesome deed was done particularly slowly
because she was especially pretty. The other three had collapsed, they
cried for their mothers and begged for a quick death, but the same fate
awaited them as well. The last of them was still almost a child, with
barely developed breasts. They literally tore the flesh off her ribs
until the white bones showed.

Loud howls of approval began when someone
brought a saw from a tool chest. This was used to tear up the breasts
of the other girls, which soon caused the floor to be awash in blood.
The Russians were in a blood frenzy. More girls were being brought in
continually.

I saw these grisly proceedings as through a red haze.

Leonora tried to dissociate from the situation, which is one of the
brain’s foremost methods for dealing with psychological and physical
trauma. But to no avail, the Russian and Polish “soldiers” disallowed
it.

. . . Over and over again I heard the
terrible screams when the breasts were tortured, and the loud groans at
the mutilation of the genitals. . . . [I]t was always the same, the
begging for mercy, the high-pitched scream when the breasts were cut and
the groans when the genitals were mutilated. The slaughter was
interrupted several times to sweep the blood out of the room and clear
away the bodies. . . . When my knees buckled I was forced onto a chair.
The Commissar always made sure that I was watching, and when I had to
throw up they even paused in their tortures. One girl had not undressed
completely, she may also have been a little older than the others, who
were around seventeen years of age. They soaked her bra with oil and set
it on fire, and while she screamed, a thin iron rod was shoved into her
vagina . . .

. . . until it came out her navel.

In the yard entire groups of girls were clubbed to death after the
prettiest of them had been selected for this torture. The air was filled
with the death cries of many hundred girls” (pp. 156–57).
And this is where I have to stop transcribing.The Holocaust
The thought of being burned alive is horrific, but the thought of
being burned alive because you are trapped in melted asphalt and
literally stuck by your own disfigured hands and knees and screaming —
in either agony or for salvation from passers-by, or perhaps both — is
worse; perhaps even worse than that is being boiled alive in the air
raid shelters designed to keep you safe because steam pipes have burst
open, unleashing their scorching wrath upon you – just one of millions
of victims of Allied “morale bombing”: Victims of your own White racial
brethren driven to absolute base madness and inhumanity by Jewish
propagandists in the “liberal democracies”.
What did you do to be burned or boiled alive? What was your crime?
You supported Adolf Hitler, the man who dared to stand up to
international finance and the Jewish system of systematic international
monetary and spiritual enslavement.THAT was your “crime” and the “crime” of millions of
other “statistics” in Germany and Europe who were incinerated, melted,
tortured, strafed, raped or blown into body parts by their own racial
and cultural kindred in the USSR, Britain and America.
The core of the firestorms often reached 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit;
the flames 1,300 to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. A Holocaust in the truest
sense of the word: a burnt offering of the Germanic race – women,
children, refugees, POWs, the elderly, and even animals at the Berlin
Zoo – to the Christian-Jewish “god” Jahve. The truth is that this was
the single largest burnt offering of human flesh to the Devil in
recorded history. And for what? For what did hundreds of thousands of
German victims suffer: international finance Capitalism.
So that a few people, mostly ethnic Jews, could continue to make
money from money; so that a handful of international “bankers” could
continue to enslave and exploit hundreds of millions of human beings.
Western man literally burnt and buried his collective spirit, soul
and value system in Germany. Germany became the tomb of the West.The Viricide
Systematic murder of German women and female Axis collaborators was
not the only European gendercide from 1944 to 1950. German men and their
Cossack and Slavic collaborators became deliberate targets of
Anglo-Soviet viricide in the postwar years. German men and boys were
reduced to corpses or skeletons by the millions in Eisenhower’s Holodomor
(death by famine). Eisenhower’s camps were designed with one purpose in
mind: mass death. Millions of German men and boys died from starvation,
disease, exposure, heat exhaustion, thirst, and of course torture,
slave labor, random massacre, and systematic execution. After having
served in the worst war in Western history, and one of the worst in world
history, German men came “home” to nothing more than rubble. Their
wives, girlfriends, and children were dead, enslaved, mutilated, driven
to madness, missing, lost, or had gone with the enemy to survive and
prevent further systematic rape by Polish, Russian, and Mongolian “men.”
There were very few “homes” to return to, so thousands of men ended
their lives in despair. They had survived six years of horror and
warfare only to end it all in the street rubble once called “Germany.”
Why?
Because their own blood kindred in America, Britain, the British
Commonwealth, and even much of Europe had betrayed them: had turned on
them to please their Jewish overlords.The Spiritual Slaughter
Soviet tanks drive right over German refugees who have survived hell
and come so close to salvation, or so they think, in the Allied
occupation zone – more aptly described as the Allied destruction zone.
The refugees are now just bloodied pulps in the snow, flattened like
dough by the tank treks. The Soviet tanks trudge on without even so much
as a pause. A German refugee ship capsizes after it is hit by a Soviet
torpedo or bombed in an American air strike. All aboard scream and
struggle to stay alive; they’ve made it so far, but the vast
majority are forced to call the sea their final resting place. Bodies
are everywhere in the water. There are literally thousands. Mothers,
brothers, sisters, cousins, POWs, and even tiny infants who have just
transitioned to life outside the womb and have breathed air for the
first time — all dead in a matter of minutes. Some drowned. Many were
crushed or torn apart by the rudders. Others froze to death. The sea was
awash in human blood and body parts after each and every one of these
attacks on refugee ships. No German was innocent. Not one.
This happened to numerous refugee ships. Many aboard were Allied POWs and Jewish camp refugees who had been protected by the fleeing German SS and Wehrmacht men – murdered by their own nation; murdered by their own race.
American pilots swoop down on exposed civilians and refugees in the
vast clearing below. They open fire. They actually shoot individual
human beings as though they are hunting wild horses or wolves in order
to cull them. Machine gun bullets rip into the backs of civilians who
had just barely escaped with their lives from the fiery Holocaust that
was the city. The holes are the size of baseballs. Hundreds are mowed
down instantly or are injured by the fire and debris — nearly all are
left to die slow, agonizing deaths in that clearing. All the while
Churchill and Roosevelt assure their self-absorbed, apathetic,
hedonistic publics, We do not shoot civilians. We do not target civilians.
An older German woman is approached by filthy Soviet soldiers. She
knows what awaits her because Goebbels did not lie. She tries to talk
them out it. She has children with her. They dispose of the children
rapidly, viciously: their heads are rammed into the side of the
building. The woman is gang-raped. What does she recall . . . the rape?
No. The sound of a child’s skull when it is crushed against a wall.
She’ll never forget that sound. Nor will I because I too can hear it. I
too witnessed it. I witnessed it through Goodrich.
And then there were the death camps where over a million German men
perished because Eisenhower hated Germans: “God I hate the Germans,” he
said. His racism and hate became official policy, a policy of genocide –
an American orchestrated Holodomor. Countless thousands of
German men were shipped off to Britain and Siberia to serve as slave
laborers for the “victors”. Victors of what? Total destruction.
They aren’t paid and most die.
Most white American GIs rob the Germans, starve the Germans, plunder
and destroy what remains of the German people’s homes, gang-rape German
women, and beat and kill German children and honorable SS men. In the
meantime most African GIs act kindly and distribute candy and food to
German women and children. It is a bitterly confusing and deplorable
world when the alleged “monsters” are the kind ones, and the members of
your own race — your own blood brethren — act like deplorable
beasts with no conscience. And yet this was the reality of Germany after
1945: an unpredictable dichotomy; an alien world.
While this horror is unfolding, Roosevelt (and later Truman) and
Churchill cheerily offer Stalin half of Europe. They are more than happy
to accommodate nearly every demand drafted up by this “Man of Steel.”
The result of these Anglo accommodations nearly defies description: the
greatest mass expulsion and deportation in history (upwards of 13
million); the mass murder of millions of Germans and their allies in
Russian, French, Jewish, and Polish retribution camps and prisons dotted
all throughout Europe and the USSR; the systematic mass rape and murder
of German and collaborator women (an estimated two million); and the
deliberate secret starvation of the Germanic race as spelled out by the
Jewish advisor to Roosevelt and Truman, Henry Morgenthau.The Toll
Between 20 and 25 million Germans and collaborators perished in the years AFTER
the war had officially ended. It is a crime that will never be
forgotten, and it is a crime that will forever stain the hands and
national consciences of the former USSR, the United States of America,
Great Britain and her Commonwealth nations, and perhaps more pointedly
the Anglo and Slavic races of the White supra-race.
A little German boy holds a lantern as he sits in a wagon en route to
the Allied lines in the bitter winter snow. He’s with his mother. She’s
bleeding profusely; she’s dying. The German doctor who the little boy
was lucky enough to hunt down is doing his best to perform a tamponade
(a blockage) of her uterus. She was brutally, viciously raped. Did she
survive? Goodrich doesn’t say, but the prognosis and tone suggests she
didn’t make it. She was a German. She supported Hitler. She was a Nazi.
She deserved it.
She deserved it.
So said the Allies in the years following the war: Germany merely got
what she deserved. The ‘morally superior’ White nations of the globe
had smashed ultimate evil: the Nazis; the German race.
Never has a greater lie been told. Never has so much hatred and
vengeance been poured forth onto one people and one nation that had
chosen not to abide by the laws of international bankers and financiers
who wish only to enslave, plunder, steal and when necessary, kill. And
most of the White races of the world were more than willing and eager to
take up the flag of international Jewish money power and to smash the
one White race that opposed it with such honor, valor and sheer might –
so much so that it took all the best brain- and material-power of the entire
White supra-race and all the monetary power of its Jewish financiers
and overlords to break its back. And yet . . . and yet . . . it still was not broken. Goodrich ends the book with a tone of hope.Beyond Hell
When all had been destroyed, when all seemed to have been lost forever in Year Zero,
the Germans proved once again that such was just not the case. Brick by
brick and hour by hour they rebuilt upon the ruins of God’s Empire a
new Germany. No Holocaust by fire, no gynocide, no viricide, no famine,
and no other inhuman atrocities could obliterate or subdue the Germanic
element of the White race of humankind.
Even though Germany today is still an occupied nation with a hurting
people, she still possesses that flicker of life and spirituality that
the other White races and nations lost long ago when they sold their
souls to Judaism and the Jewish “god” of hatred and revenge, Jahve.
“Unbowed, unbent, unbroken.” Such are the words of an album released by a
European band named Hammerfall. And such are the words that
describe the German people, the German folk, and the German race. The
only ones who bear the burden of bloodstain and guilt are the Allies. No
crimes in recorded human history surpass those inflicted against
Germany and Europe by the United States, Great Britain and the former
United Soviet Socialist Republics – all with Jewish spiritual, media and
financial backing and support.
The death of National Socialist Germany was the death of Western man and everything he once stood for.
I must thank Thomas Goodrich. Hellstorm has changed my life.

AMERICAN investigators at the U. S. Court in Dachau, Germany, used the following methods to obtain confessions:Beatings
and brutal kickings. Knocking out teeth and breaking jaws. Mock
trials. Solitary confinement. Posturing as priests. Very limited
rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of acquittal.Complaints concerning these third degree methods were received by Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall last Spring [1948]. Royall appointed Justice Gordon Simpson of the Texas Supreme Court and me to go to Germany and check up on the reports. Accompanied
by Lt. Col. Charles Lawrence, Jr., we went to Munich, Germany, set up
offices there, and heard a stream of testimony about the way in which
American atrocities were committed. But first, a bit of the background. Last
Spring the Supreme Court refused the habeas corpus petition of Col.
Willis N. Everett, Jr., an American lawyer, who had served as defense
counsel for the 74 Germans accused in the famous Malmedy case. Everett is a very able lawyer, a conscientious and sincere gentleman. He is not a fanatic. In his petition, Everett charged that the Germans had not received a fair trial.Everett
did not claim that all the German defendants were innocent, but since
they did not have a fair trial, there was no way of telling the
innocent from the guilty.
The tragedy is that so many of us Americans, having fought and won the
war with so much sweat and blood, now say, "All Germans should be
punished." We won the war, but some of us want to go on killing. That
seems to me wicked.
If Everett's shocking charges were true, they would be a blot on the
American conscience for eternity. The fact that there were atrocities by
the Germans during the war against Americans, or by Americans against
Germans, would not in the least lessen our disgrace if such peacetime
atrocities were to go unchallenged.

Our
specific assignment was not only to examine Col. Everett's charges,
but also to examine the cases of the 139 death sentences, which at that
time remained unexecuted: 152 Germans had already been executed.

The
139 doomed men who were still alive fell into three groups. They were
accused of involvement in the Dachau concentration camp crimes, in the
killing of American fliers, or in the Malmedy massacres. Let me say
that I believe the crimes for which these Germans were tried actually
took place, and that some Germans were guilty of them.

But we
should not let the indiscriminate hate of all Germans that was
generated during and after the war, blind us to the necessity of
punishing the guilty ones only.

After
this investigation, and after talking to all sides, I do not believe
that the German people knew what the German Government was doing. I am
convinced the German populace had no idea what diabolical crimes that
arch-fiend, [Heinrich] Himmler, was committing in the concentration camps (pour rappel, dachau n'est plus considéré aujourd'hui comme un camp d'extermination par les historiens). From the atrocities we learned about, he must have been the very prince of devils.

But
as for the Germans at large, they fought the war as loyal citizens
with a fatherland to support, and a fatherland to defend. Some American fliers, shot down on bombing raids over Germany, were killed by German civilians. These
Germans felt that the American fliers were the murderers of their
defenseless wives, mothers, and children who were in the bombed cities,
just as the English felt that German fliers were their murderers. That's war.
I felt deeply about these fliers. I had two sons in the Air Force.
Jimmy made 35 missions over Germany and returned safe, thank God! Dick
made 32 Missions and was finally shot down over Italy. He spent 12
months in a German prisoner-of-war camp and was fairly well treated. He
is now in a sanitarium in Arizona recovering from TB he contracted in
the camp. II The Malmedy massacres,
in which a group of American prisoners of war were mown down after
being captured during the Battle of the Bulge, actually happened. But
can't we distinguish between the assertion that these atrocities did
happen, and the assertion that they were committed by these 74 Germans
who had been in or near Malmedy at that time? Because
some wicked sadistic German individuals did it, are we doing the right
thing by saying any and all Germans we lay our hands on are guilty and
should be destroyed? I personally don't believe that. That's not the way of thinking I learnt in my church, or you learned in your church.
On Russian insistence, the Americans couldn't retry these men. The
Russian philosophy in these matters is that the investigators determine
the guilt or innocence of the accused, and the judge merely sets the
sentence. We accepted the Russian formula of no-retrial, but we won out
on the presumption of innocence before trial.

The
American prohibition of hear-say evidence had been suspended. Second
and third-hand testimony was admitted, although the Judge Advocate
General warned against the value of hearsay evidence, especially when it
was obtained, as this was, two or three years after the act.Lt. Col. Ellis and Lt Perl of the Prosecution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain competent evidence.Perl told the court, "We had a tough case to crack and we had to use persuasive methods." He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods included various "expedients, including some violence and mock trials." He further told the court that the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods.

The statements which were admitted as evidence
were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement
for three, four, and, five months. They were confined between four
walls, with no windows, and no opportunity of exercise. Two meals a day
were shoved in to them through a slot in the door. They were not
allowed to talk to anyone. They had no communication with their
families or any minister or priest during that time.This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants.

III Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken.

All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair.This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators.

Perl admitted use of mock trials and
persuasive methods including violence and said the court was free to
decide the weight to be attached to evidence thus received. But it all
went in.

One 18 year old defendant, after a series of beatings, was writing a statement being dictated to him.When they reached the 16th page, the boy was locked up for the night.In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering. "I will not utter another lie."When the jailer came in later to get him to finish his false statement, he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead.However
the statement that the German had hanged himself to escape signing was
offered and received in evidence in the trial of the others.Sometimes
a prisoner who refused to sign was led into a dimly lit room, where a
group of civilian investigators, wearing U. S. Army uniforms. were
seated around a black table with a
crucifix in the center and two candles burning, one on each aide. "You
will now have your American trial," the defendant was told. The sham court passed a sham sentence of death. Then the accused was told, "You
will hang in a few days, as soon as the general approves this
sentence: but in the meantime sign this confession and we can get you
acquitted." Some still wouldn't sign. We were shocked by the crucifix being used so mockingly. In another case, a bogus Catholic priest (actually an investigator)
entered the cell of one of the defendants, heard his confession, gave
him absolution, and then gave him a little friendly tip: "Sign
whatever the investigators ask you to sign. It will get you your
freedom. Even though it's false, I can give you absolution now in
advance for the lie you'd tell."

Our
final report on these trials has been turned over to Secretary of the
Army Royall. In spite of the many instances like those I have
described, we found no general conspiracy to obtain evidence improperly.With
the exception of 29 cases, we saw no reason why the executions should
not be carried out. For the 110 others, there was sufficient competent
evidence from other sources to warrant the death penalty, exclusive of
the evidence obtained by the third-degree.
The 29 men whose sentences we recommended for commutation certainly did
not have a fair trial by American standards. Twenty-seven of them were
to have their terms reduced to life, one of them was to get 10 years,
and one would get two and one-half years, according to our
recommendations. We also recommended a permanent program of clemency for
reconsideration of the sentences of other prisoners convicted in war
crimes cases.
Secretary Royall has saved our national conscience. Could we as
Americans ever have held our heads up if he hadn't looked into it? He
has saved our national prestige and our international reputation.
However, in spite of Secretary Royall's action in this matter, there is
little real room for complacency on the part of Americans. Rather our
report reveals, by implication, that we still have a serious situation
in Germany to clear up. Moreover, five of the men for whom we
recommended commutations have been hanged since we turned in our report.
In all 100 of the 139 we set out to investigate are now dead.
IV The American investigators who committed the atrocities in the name
of American Justice and under the American flag are going scot-free. At
this point there are two objectives which should be aimed for:

1. Those prisoners whose death sentences have
not been commuted and who have not yet been hanged should be saved,
pending full judicial review.

2. American investigators who abused the
powers of victory and prostituted justice to vengeance, should be
exposed in a public process, preferably in the U. S., and prosecuted.

Unless these crimes committed by Americans are
exposed by us at home, the prestige of America and American justice
will suffer permanent and irreparable damage. We can partially atone
for our own misconduct if we first search It out and publicly condemn
and disavow it. If we wait for our enemies to blazon our guilt abroad,
we can only bow our heads in shamed admission.

EDWARD L. VAN RODEN, a
Pennsylvania judge served in World War I and II, in the latter as
Chief of the Military Justice Division for the European Theater where
he saw service in Normandy, Belgium, the Rhineland, the Battle of the
Bulge, and in the Ardennes. In 1946 he was reassigned to active duty and served on several important court martial trials in Germany.In
1948 Secretary of the Army Royall appointed him to an extraordinary
commission charged with investigating the Dachau War Crimes program.

You might have heard of concentration camps that the Germans
ran for the Jews. But, have you heard about the 1255 concentration
camps that the Jews ran for ethnic Christian Germans AFTER THE
SECOND WORLD WAR? Did you know that 60,000 to 80,000 thousand
Germans died
in those camps? Did you know that the German government refused
to investigate these crimes? Did you know that when John Sack, a
well-known Jewish reporter, decided to write a book about these
camps, no publisher in the "Free World" would dare to publish it?
Did you know that one publisher printed it and pulped the entire
edition? This is his account in his own words. (...)

Writing Lola's Story

Now, this story I liked. If it was true, this was a story worth
telling. I had this dream: maybe the Serbs and Croats will read it, the
Irish Catholics and Protestants will read it, the Hutus and Tutsis,
the Israelis and Palestinians ... Maybe they'll read it, and maybe
they'll learn, as Lola did, that to hate your neighbors may or may
not destroy them, but it does destroy yourself. And maybe these people
will stop their revenge, stop their genocide.
We Jews always say of the Holocaust, "Never again. Never again will
people hurt us simply because we are Jews." But Lola was apparently
saying, "Yes, and never again will I hurt a German simply because
he's a German." Fifty years ago, Lola was apparently saying, "Let
there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me." This story I wanted
very much to write. So ...
I start interviewing Lola. At the Inn of the Seventh Ray in Los
Angeles. At a Jewish cemetery in New Jersey. On the Champs Elysés
in Paris. I interview Lola on and off for two-and-a-half years. Her
memories just pour out, and she also introduces me to a dozen other
people, all Jews: people who knew her in Gleiwitz, prison guards in
Gleiwitz, even the man who appointed her the commandant in Gleiwitz.
I write a twenty-page article on Lola's revenge and Lola's
redemption. Lola reads it and likes it. The story runs in California
magazine. Lola, at her own expense, comes to Washington to promote it on
National Public Radio. The story is sold internationally, and it's
reprinted in Best Magazine Articles, 1988. We have movie offers. Bette
Midler and Suzanne Somers want to play the Lola part.
And then I write a book proposal. I write, "It's Lola's redemption,
not Lola's revenge, that this book's about." I'll go to Germany. I'll
find some prisoners maybe. I'll go to Poland. I'll find some more guards,
maybe. I'll write a book. The title will be Lola. And in August 1988, the
publisher Henry Holt in New York City says, "Okay! We want it!" Good
news, and I phone it to Lola.
And Lola on the telephone says, "Listen, John, I don't want you to
write it." I say, "Lola? Lola, this is the first time you've told that
to me." I say, "Lola, we signed a contract." We had signed one. Lola
had written, "I grant you the exclusive right to write and to publish
a book about my life."
That night I go to Lola's apartment in Hollywood. Anyone here ever
been in an encounter group? Remember your first night? Everyone shouting
and screaming. You're just sitting there stupefied. You're thinking,
"What is going on?" Well, I'm in Lola's condo. Lola is saying, "Lookit,
John. I don't like the way you write. You write like a reporter. If you
start writing this book, I will stop you. I will stop you!"
Lola's daughter is there. She's saying, "John, give it up. I'm begging
you to give it up. John! Give it up!" Another daughter of Lola's is
there. She's a lawyer, and she says, "John! You're going to have
instantaneous and very expensive litigation!" Lola's saying, "I'll
go to court." The daughter's saying, "John, I want you to sign this
release. John! Sign the release!" The other daughter's saying, "John!
Just leave us! Just go!" Lola's saying, "John! Get out of our
lives!"
I leave. I telephone Lola but she doesn't answer. I write her, but she
sends the letters back, unopened, inscribed "refused."
And not just Lola. Lola's second-in-command at the prison in Gleiwitz
was Moshe, also a Jew. He won't talk to me. His wife on the telephone
says, "We don't give you the permission to write this." I say, "I ...
You ..." That's what I say, "I ... You ... One doesn't need permission!"
I have permission, from the Constitution of the United States. Moshe's
wife hangs up.
And then there is Jadzia, also a Jew, she was one of Lola's guards in
Gleiwitz. Jadzia says on the telephone, "I was never in Gleiwitz!" Then
she says, "Yes, I was in Gleiwitz, but I'll never talk about it!" And
then she talks for an hour saying, "I don't know nothing, nothing,
nothing, nothing. Nothing! Nothing!"
People won't talk to me. People tell other people, "Don't talk to
John Sack." People talk to me, and they lie to me. People say they'll
sue me, they'll destroy me, they'll kill me. One man takes my driver's
license, writes down my address, and says, "If you write about me, I
will call the Israeli Mafia."
Here's some advice. Never tell a reporter, "You'd better not write
this." I have a contract with Henry Holt. I've made a promise to
Henry Holt. I keep my promises.
In April 1989, I fly to Germany. I go to this castle, this concrete
castle, high on a hill above the Rhine. It's the German Federal Archives,
and they've got forty thousand statements there by Germans who lived in
what now is Poland during World War II. The statements of course are
in German, in German script, and I find five statements from Germans
who were in Lola's prison.
I go to another place in Germany: a great medieval hall, with
banners on the stone walls. It's a reunion of a thousand people from
Gleiwitz. They're drinking beer. They're eating sausages and sauerkraut.
They're laughing and singing, "Ein prosit, ein prosit ..." And I'm like
a little flower girl. You know, the girl who goes from table to table
selling roses? I'm going around asking, "Uh, excuse me. Anyone here
who was in prison in Gleiwitz?" Yeah, I am a party pooper. I admit it.
But eventually I find five of Lola's prisoners.
I take the train to Gleiwitz. Now it's Gliwice, Poland. And going
through Communist East Berlin, I'm arrested, taken off the train, and
locked up in a little room because with me I have a copy of the book
Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevìkerung aus den Gebieten ótlich
der Oder-Neisse ["The Expulsion of the German Population from the
Territories East of the Oder-Neisse," published in the 1950s by the
Bonn government]. Hours later I'm let out and I get to Gleiwitz/ Gliwice
at four in the morning. It's a city of two hundred thousand people,
almost none of whom speak English. I don't speak Polish, but I find
three of Lola's guards. They remember her well.
It's 1989, Poland is still Communist, but I get into Lola's prison,
into the prisoners' cells. I tell them, "Djien dobre. Good morning." I
see the prison records. Remember when, according to Lola, she went to
the Polish government and said, "I want revenge"? Well, I find her
application, in her own handwriting. She wrote, "I want to cooperate
against our German oppressors." I find the official document appointing
her commandant in Gleiwitz.
After that, I go to Germany eleven more times, to Poland three more
times, to France, Austria, Israel, Canada, and all around the United
States. Through interpreters I talk to two hundred people in Polish
and Russian, Danish and Swedish, German and Dutch, French and Spanish,
Yiddish and Hebrew. I left out English. I get three hundred hours of
tape-recorded interviews, and I see thousands of documents.
And what do I learn? Well: Lola was telling the truth. She was the
commandant in Gleiwitz. And she was taking revenge. She slapped the
Germans around. And just as she said, she stopped. I remember one day
in 1989, I'm having lunch with one of her guards at the Hotel Leszny.
We're eating wienerschnitzel. And out of the blue the man says, "You
know, Lola stopped. She told us, 'Stop!' She said, 'We're going to
show the Germans we're not like them.'"
So Lola was telling the truth. But, she wasn't telling the whole
truth. Lola had told me the people in her prison were German soldiers.
And yes, twenty of them were German soldiers, men who worked as painters,
carpenters, and such. But there were a thousand other prisoners there,
and they were German civilians: German men, German women, German
children.
One prisoner was a fourteen-year-old boy. He had been out in Gleiwitz
wearing his boy scout pants. A man cried out, "You're wearing black
pants! You're a fascist!," and he chased the boy and tackled him at
the Church of Saint Peter and Paul, and then took him to Lola's
prison. Now, the boy was completely innocent. So were most of the
people in Lola's prison. They weren't Gestapo. They weren't SS. They
weren't even Nazis. Out of a thousand prisoners, just twenty were ever
even accused of it.
But the Germans in Lola's prison were slapped and whipped. And I'm
so sorry to have to say it, but they were also tortured. The boy
scout: the guards poured gasoline on his curly black hair and set it
on fire. The boy went insane. The men: they were beaten with a
Totschläger, a "beater-to-death." It's a long steel spring with a
big lead ball at the end. You use it like a racketball racket. Your
arm, your wrist, the spring: they deliver a triple hit to a German's f
ace.
Lola didn't tell me, but the Germans in her prison were dying. I found
their death certificates in Gleiwitz city hall. One of Lola's guards
told me, "Yeah, the Germans would die." He told me, "I'd put the
bodies in a horse-drawn cart. I'd cover them with potato peels so no
one would see. I'd ride to the outskirts and, after I threw the
potato peels out, I'd take the Germans to the Catholic cemetery. To
the mass grave."
We all know about Auschwitz. But I have to tell you, the Germans in
Lola's prison were worse off than Lola had been at Auschwitz. Lola at
Auschwitz wasn't locked in a room night and day. She wasn't tortured
night after night. She herself told me: "Thank God, nobody tried to
rape us. The Germans weren't allowed to." But all of that happened to
German girls at Lola's prison in Gleiwitz.
One woman I talked with wasn't even German. She was Polish. In 1945
she was twenty years old: a tall, blonde, beautiful medical student.
The guards at Lola's prison pulled off her clothes and told her, "Let's
do it!" They beat her and beat her, night after night, until she was
black and blue. One morning, she came back to her cell and fell on
the floor, sobbing. Her cellmate asked her, "What, what is that blue
thing you're wearing? Oh, oh, it's your skin."
And ten feet away was Lola's office. Lola in her brass, braid, and
stars. I once asked her, "Lola, where did you get that uniform?," and
Lola said, "Well, the Russians must've given it to me." That wasn't
the whole truth either.
Lola was in the Polish secret police. Its name was the Office of
State Security, in Polish the Urzad Bezpieczenstwa Publicznego. The
Germans called it the Polish Gestapo. One of its missions was to round
up Nazi suspects. But for all practical purposes, if you were a German,
you were a Nazi suspect. So the mission was to round up Germans,
imprison them, interrogate them, and if they confess, prosecute them.
In the Office of State Security, the lower ranks were Polish Catholics,
but most of the leaders were Polish Jews. The chief of the Office in
Warsaw was a Jew. (When I was in Poland he wasn't alive, but I met
some of his family.) The department directors, all or almost all of
them, were Jews.
In Silesia, the province where Lola was commandant, the director of
the Office of State Security was a Jew. I met him in Copenhagen, a
little bald-headed man. The director of prisons was also a Jew. I met
his whole family in Tel Aviv. The secretary of state security was a
Jew. I met him time and again at his home in New Jersey. And in the
Office of State Security in Silesia in February 1945, of the officers
- not the enlisted men, not the guards, but the lieutenants, captains
and such - one-fourth were Catholics, and three-fourths were Jews.
I interviewed twenty-four of them. And I learned that the Office of
State Security ran 227 prisons for German civilians like Lola's. It
also ran 1,255 concentration camps, and I interviewed four of the
commandants. They were also Jews. One was Lola's boy friend, a man
who'd lost in the Holocaust his mother, his father, all his brothers
(he had no sisters), all his uncles and aunts, and all but one of his
cousins. I hope that, like me, you can all have compassion for Solomon
Morel.
But one night in February, 1945, Solomon went to his concentration
camp in the city of Swietochlowice. He went into the Germans' barracks,
and said, "My name is Captain Morel. I am a Jew. I was at Auschwitz. I
swore I would take revenge on you Nazis." They weren't Nazis, but
Solomon said, "Now! Everyone! Sing the Horst Wessel song!" That was a
Nazi anthem. No one wanted to sing it. One boy, fourteen years old,
didn't even know it.
Solomon had a club. He said, "Sing it!" Some people began, "Die Fahne
hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen ..." "Sing it! Sing it, I say!" They
started singing, "Clear the streets for the brown battalions. Clear
the street for the Storm Section men." Solomon had all this hate inside
him, and he released it. He picked up a wooden stool and he started
beating the Germans to death. For this one camp, I found the death
certificates for 1,583 Germans.
In other camps and other prisons, thousands of German civilians died.
German men, women, children, babies. At one camp there was a barracks
for fifty babies. They were in cribs, but the camp doctor, Dr. Cedrowski
- he was a Jew who had been in Auschwitz -- he didn't heat the barracks,
and he didn't give the babies milk. He gave them only some soup, and
forty-eight of the fifty babies died.
All in all, sixty to eighty thousand Germans died. Some were killed by
Jews, some by Catholics, and many by typhus, dysentery, and starvation,
but sixty to eighty thousand died in the custody of the Office of State
Security. Now, someone, a German, once told me that this was another
holocaust. Well, I'm sure it seemed like a holocaust to the Germans.
But let's not forget: sixty thousand is one percent of the number of
Jews who died in the capital-H Holocaust. Jews didn't do what the
Germans did. We didn't plot to exterminate the German people. We didn't
mobilize all the Jews and the Jewish state. (There was no Jewish state.)
We didn't send the Germans systematically to cyanide chambers.
But let's also remember that sixty to eighty thousand civilians is
more than the Germans lost at Dresden, and more than, or just as many
as, the Japanese lost at Hiroshima, the Americans at Pearl Harbor,
the British in the Battle of Britain, or the Jews at Belsen or
Buchenwald.
All this was covered up for nearly fifty years. Jews who were involved
didn't talk about it. For example, the chief of police in occupied
Breslau, Germany, in 1945, who was Jewish, later wrote a book about
the Holocaust. And in telling about his time as chief of police in
Breslau, all he says is, "We moved westward to Breslau and ... from
there ... to Prague." That's it. And Jewish reporters who knew didn't
write about it. There's a working reporter right now in New York City
who was in Poland right after World War II. He told me, "Whatever,
whatever the Germans tell you, believe me, it's true." But he himself,
he never wrote about it.
The truth was covered up, and was still being covered up. In 1989,
I went to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, Israel's central Holocaust center.
As you may know, they have fifty million documents there about the
Holocaust. I ask them, "Well, what do you have on the Office of State
Security?" They have nothing. I ask them, "What do you have on the
Jews in the Office of State Security?" Nothing. I say, "Well, there
were Jewish commandants, Jewish directors, Jewish ..." The chairman
of Yad Vashem responds, "It sounds rather imaginary," and the director
of archives says to me, "Imm-possible! Impossible!"
Denial, denial. I know that denial is a very human thing. But
historically I don't think it's a Jewish thing. When Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob committed sins, we Jews didn't deny it. Yes, Abraham, the
father of our people, sinned. God told him to go to Israel, instead
he went to Egypt, and we admitted it in the Book of Genesis. Judah
(the word "Jew" comes from Judah) made love to a prostitute. We
admitted it in Genesis. Moses, even Moses sinned, and God didn't
let him into the Promised Land. We admitted that in Deuteronomy.
Solomon -- good, wise, old King Solomon -- did evil. He "worshipped
idols." We didn't cover it up. We admitted it in the Book of Kings.
It seems to me that that's the Jewish tradition. How can we say
to other people -- to Germans, to Serbs, to Hutus -- "What you're
doing is wrong," if we ourselves do it and cover it up? I wish it
were someone else who was here today. Abraham Foxman. Elie Wiesel.
I wish he or she would simply say yes, some Jews, some Jews, did
evil in 1945. But when the Jewish establishment didn't say it, then
I had to say it.
I'm a reporter. That's what reporters do. Someone kills sixty
thousand people, we report it. If we don't report it, it might
become common, or more common, than it already is. But also I'm a
Jew, and the Torah says (Leviticus 5:1), that if someone does evil,
and if I know it and don't report it, then I am guilty too.
So I start writing this book. The title now won't be Lola. It'll
be An Eye For An Eye. And on the third page I write, "I hope that
An Eye For An Eye is something more than the story of Jewish
revenge: that it's the story of Jewish redemption." I write about
Jews taking revenge, yes. But that is one tenth of An Eye for an
Eye. Mostly I write ...
I write about Zlata, Moshe, Mania, and Pola. They were Jews who
refused to look at, much less work at Lola's prison. I write about
Ada, who visited the prison once, just once, and then fled to Israel.
I write about Shlomo, who was in the Office of State Security and,
at the risk of his life, told people in it, "You must stop doing
this."
I write about Lola. I write that in Gleiwitz she finally remembered
how a Jew should act and, at the risk of her life, she got bread,
her own bread from her own home, and smuggled it to the German
prisoners. Now this isn't something that Lola told me. No, the
prison guards told me. They said that if Lola had been caught, she'd
have gone to prison herself.
And I write that at Yom Kippur, 1945, Lola -- again at the risk of
her life -- escaped from Gleiwitz, just as she had escaped some months
earlier from Auschwitz, and came to the United States. Almost all the
Jews in the Office of State Security escaped, at the risk of their
lives, in September, October, and November 1945. And I write that
too. They crept through the woods into Germany, or climbed the pass
into Italy. They did what the SS never did: they deserted, they
defected.
I was crying while I was writing this. My advance from Henry Holt was
$25,000, and for three years I was writing An Eye For An Eye. In
September 1991 I finally finished it, wrapped it up, and mailed it to
Henry Holt in New York. And I told myself: "Okay. I've done it.
That's the end of the cover-up."
No. Because then the people at Henry Holt say, "We don't want it."
They don't say it's wrong. They know it's right. They just say,
"We don't want to publish it. Keep the twenty-five thousand."
Okay. My agent and I send the manuscript to other publishers:
to Harper's, to Scribner's - you name it, we sent it - to two
dozen other publishers.
And let me tell you. The letters we get from these people, they're
practically blurbs. The publishers say: "well-written," "extremely
well-written," "chilling," "compelling," "disturbing," "dismaying,"
"shocking," "startling," "astonishing," "mesmerizing," "extraordinary,"
"I was riveted," "I was bowled over," "I love it!" And the
publishers all reject it. The letter from St. Martin's Press
says, "I am always moved by Holocaust books, but I'd have trouble
distinguishing this book ... from other books ... in this vast area
of literature."
Okay. My agent and I agree that if we can't sell a book, we'll try
magazines. One of the chapters is on Solomon Morel. Remember? The
man who lost his mother, father, all his siblings, uncles, and aunts
in the Holocaust. The man who had so much hate for the Germans, he
had to disgorge it, who commanded a concentration camp at
Swietochlowice, and beat Germans to death.
Solomon is still alive. He's wanted by Interpol for crimes against
humanity. Interpol has an international warrant out for his arrest.
But he's fled to Israel. He's taking refuge in Tel Aviv, and no
one in America -- no newspaper, magazine or television network --
has ever reported it.
So we send the chapter on Solomon Morel to Esquire magazine. I've
been a contributing editor there, a war correspondent in Vietnam,
Iraq, Bosnia. Esquire says, "No." We send it to GQ magazine. GQ
says, "Yes!" The editor says it's the most important story in
GQ's history. He even tells that to an editor of Esquire at a
bar in Greenwich Village. He tells him, "Ha, ha! You don't have
it! We do!"
For six weeks GQ is fact-checking. They don't find a single
error. They send me the galley proofs, the page proofs, and on
Wednesday the presses will roll. And then the telephone rings at
my home in the Rocky Mountains. The editor of GQ says, "John,
this isn't a happy phone call. We aren't going to run it." He
tells me to keep the $15,000 and to sell the story somewhere else.
So once again my agent and I are making calls, sending faxes,
passing out the GQ page proofs. Harper's magazine says no. Rolling
Stone says no and "I'm sure you'll understand." Mother Jones, that
great exposé magazine ("Extra! Extra! Cigarettes are bad
for you!") doesn't even call back. The New Yorker (which has
published ten pieces by me) refuses even to look at it.
But finally, finally, in March 1993, the story of Solomon Morel is
published in the Village Voice. And in November, An Eye For An Eye is
published by Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins. So, thank God,
now it's all over. I can relax now. Not.
Because one day later there's a telephone call to Basic Books. It's
from the executive director of the World Jewish Congress. He says he
wants an immediate retraction, and if he doesn't get it he'll call a
major press conference tomorrow. He says he'll denounce me, Basic
Books, and HarperCollins, and say, "They are all anti-Semites." Well,
we don't retract, and the World Jewish Congress doesn't denounce. But
…
Then the reviews come out. And the reviewers say that An Eye for an
Eye isn't true, that what I wrote there never happened at all.
Please! Much of An Eye For An Eye had been fact-checked by California
magazine, fact-checked by GQ, and, for the Village Voice, fact-checked
by a woman who is the Fact-Checker from Hell. She and I checked every
single word, even if we had to call up Poland. And when, after two
weeks of this, night and day, we were finally done, the editor of the
Voice gave an interview saying, "This may be the most accurate story
in the history of American journalism."
Much of An Eye For An Eye was corroborated by 60 Minutes, which found
eight eyewitnesses I hadn't found. It was corroborated by the New York
Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major
newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote,
"The facts are true," "The facts are right," "The facts are
iron-bound."
But in the United States, one review was entitled "False Witness."
Another was headed "The Big Lie, Continued."
The Jewish paper Forward said, "Sack is transparently writing
docudrama," and told readers that Lola Potok was not the commandant
of the prison in Gleiwitz. Well, Lola herself had told me, "I was
the commandant," and thirty-five other people, including the current
commandant, including the current director of prisons, said yes,
Lola was the commandant. I have the document that says, "We appoint
Citizen Lola Potok Commandant," and I have a document signed by
Lola Potok, Commandant. But still the Forward said, "The unlikelihood
is overwhelming but Sack ... seems ... oblivious." As I read this,
I felt I was being lectured by Chico Marx. Remember? "Who you gonna
believe? Your own two eyes or me?" I wrote a letter to the Forward.
Over the last seven years, I've had to write, at last count, about
1,500 letters about An Eye for an Eye. And all those letters, added
up, are twice as long as the book is.

“British and Allied troops appearing as defendants in war crimes trials with brutal Serbs and former Red Army thugs is [a phenomenon that is] well overdue,” says 20th century analyst Michael Walsh, author of “The Legend of Dunkirk” (p. 41). His research exposes Allied genocide, enslavement and institutionalized ill treatment of Axis POWs both during and after World War II. And the U.S. government is as culpable as the other Allied governments in this matter. The abuse of Axis POWs was contrary to the Geneva and other conventions to which Britain and its allies were signatories. As late as 1948, three years after the war’s end, the British government’s treatment of its foreign prisoners was subject to International Red Cross (IRC) scrutiny and international condemnation. The IRC threatened to bring the British government before international tribunals for abuse and illegal enslavement. Typically, British-administered prisoner-of-war camps, even long after the war had ended and wartime disruptions had ceased, were worse than Belsen had ever been. Tragically, even civilians were illegally held, deported and murdered, in the tens of thousands. The killers have, so far, evaded justice.

The respected Associated Press photographer Henry Griffin, who had taken pictures of corpses in Buchenwald and Dachau, stated, when visiting Allied POW camps: “The only difference I can see between these men and those corpses is that here they are still breathing.”1

According to revelations by members of the House of Commons, about 130,000 former German officers and men were held during the winter of 1945-46 in British camps in Belgium under conditions which British officers have described as “not much better than Belsen.”2

Adding to international outrage, Cyril Connolly, one of England’s most acclaimed writers, reported:

British guards imprisoned German troops and tortured them. [T]hey were so possessed by propaganda about German “Huns” that they obviously enjoyed demonstrating their atrocities to visiting journalists.

A British reporter named Moorehead who was present at these “torture fests” observed that a young British medical officer and a captain of engineers managed the Bergen-Belsen camp:

The captain was in the best of moods. When we approached the cells of jailed guards, the sergeant lost his temper. The captain explained: “This morning we had an interrogation. I’m afraid the prisoners don’t look exactly nice.”

The cells were opened for the visiting journalists.

The German prisoners lay there, crumpled, moaning, covered with gore. The man next to me made vain attempts to get to his feet and finally managed to stand up. He stood there trembling, and tried to stretch out his arms as if fending off blows. “Up!” yelled the sergeant. “Come off the wall.”

“They pushed themselves off from the wall and stood there, swaying. In another cell the medical officer had just finished an interrogation. “Up!” yelled the officer. “Get up!” The man lay in his blood on the floor. He propped two arms on a chair and tried to pull himself up. A second demand and he succeeded in getting to his feet. He stretched his arms toward us. “Why don’t you kill me off?” he moaned.

Former British army veteran A.W. Perkins of Holland-on-Sea described conditions in the Sennelager British concentration camp, which, shockingly, held, not captured troops, but civilians. He recounts: “During the latter half of 1945, I was with British troops guarding suspected Nazi civilians living on starvation rations in a camp called Sennelager. They were frequently beaten and grew as thin as concentration camp victims [apparently he did not realize that this is exactly what they were—Ed.], scooping handfuls of swill from our waste bins.”

This ex-guard described how other guards amused themselves by baiting the desperate prisoners. “They could be shot on sight if they ventured close to the perimeter fence. It was a common trick to throw a cigarette just inside the fence and shoot any prisoner who tried to reach it.”4

“When press representatives ask to examine the prison camps, the British loudly refuse, with the excuse that the Geneva Convention bars such visits to POW camps,” complained press correspondent Arthur Veysey from London on May 28, 1946.

Reported the Chicago Tribune Press Service on May 19, 1946, one year after the war’s end: “[Typically the] prisoners lived through the winter in tents and slept on the bare ground under one blanket each. They say they are underfed and beaten and kicked by guards. Many have no underclothes or boots.”

An Associated Press dispatch (London, August 27, 1946) stated, more than 16 months after the war ended: “In the summer of 1946, an increasing number of prisoners-of-war were escaping from British slave camps, often with British civilian aid. Accounts of the chases by military police are reminiscent of pre-Civil War pursuits [of] fleeing Negro fugitives.”

Tens of thousands of Central European people, displaced by the war, who fell into British hands, were treated even worse in British-controlled Austria and Yugoslavia. There, Britain and the Soviet Union’s NKVD ran the concentration camps jointly. The latter, forerunners to the KGB, were invited to assist the British in the capture and corralling, deportation and slaughter of their captives.

One British officer described how “The prisoners [civilians] were treated coarsely but not brutally. They were pushed and shoved, but there was no resistance, no fighting or trying to get back or get away. They were all completely docile, resigned totheir fate. The soldiers collected them all quickly into groups and marched them away to be machine-gunned in groups.”

The British officer added:

Some of them didn’t get very far, I’m afraid. At the back of the station there was a wood, a copse, and they seemed to be marched behind this copse. Shortly afterward, there were quite a number of sustained bursts of machine-gun fire. I can’t say for certain what happened, because I couldn’t see the shooting. But I am pretty sure a lot of them were shot there and then, not on the siding itself but just around the corner of the wood.

This is typical of many accounts when units of the British army, working with Red Army NKVD officers, hunted down and butchered tens of thousands of Cossackcivilian refugees, including children, in Austria, in summer 1945, after the war hadended.

Tens of thousands of people, of many nationalities, were hunted down and rounded up like cattle to be taken to the Red Army’s killing fields. One account said:

The whole train was bespattered with blood. They were open-plan carriages, and I remember the bloodstains where bodies had been dragged right down the corridor between the seats and down three [or] four steps.

Another such patrol, consisting of two Red Army officers and four British soldiers, set off into the hills on horseback on June 8. They captured one such group on the lower slopes. . . . The Cossacks ran off, leaving just a few, mainly women and children who were too weak to move. One soldier spotted a Cossack in the distance, aimed his rifle at him, fired and saw him drop. . . . As he was not seen to rise again, it was assumed he had been killed.

Capt. Duncan McMillan remembers “being guided to a small railway station, where there was a barbed-wire enclosure.” He saw the Cossacks being unloaded from the trucks and described how they were stripped of their possessions, even food, before being marched away. “Many British soldiers who were there have testified that they heard the rattle of machine-guns nearby just moments after the prisoners were removed.” James Davidson said: “We thought that machine-gunning must be the finish of them. We thought they were just taken back there and slaughtered.”

These awful accounts were described in Nicholas Bethell’s book The Last Secret, published by Futura (London) in 1974. The English legal apparatus suppressed further accounts.

In August 1946, 15 months after the end of World War II, according to the International Red Cross, “Britain had 460,000 German prisoners slaving for her.” This was in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention (enslavement of POWs is a violation of the Geneva Convention, Article 75), which Britain was a signatory to. Arthur Veysey of the Chicago Tribune Press Service on May 28, 1946 reported: “When they (German POWs) learned upon arrival in British and French ports they were to be worked indefinitely as slaves, they became sullen.” Arthur Veysey, appalled by the British abuse of human rights and the illegality of its slave-ownership policies and defiance of the Geneva Convention said:

The British government nets over $250,000,000 annually from its slaves. The government, which frankly calls itself the ‘owner’ of the prisoners, hires the men out to any employer needing men, charging the going rate for such work, usually $15 to $20 a week. It pays the slaves from 10 to 20 cents a day. The prisoners are never paid in cash, but are given credits either in the form of vouchers or credit.

When American attempts were made to prevent Stalin from abducting 5 million Germans, many of them civilians including children, as slave laborers after Germany’s defeat, the Soviets made their point. They produced a proclamation signed by Gen. Dwight Eisenhower a year earlier, which gave the Soviets complete freedom to do whatever they wished with captured Germans. This included deportation, enslavement; to loot and destroy without restraint, even using German transport to do so. They reminded the U.S. government that they had an equal right to do as the Americans were doing and were exercising the same right.

Eyewitness accounts describe events when Berlin and Breslau surrendered. “The long gray-green columns of prisoners were marched east downcast and fearful toward huge depots near Leningrad, Moscow, Minsk, Stalingrad, Kiev, Kharkov and Sevastopol. All fit men had to march 22 miles a day. Those physically handicapped went in handcarts or carts pulled by spare beasts.” This was reported in The Congressional Record on March 29, 1946.

By August 1946 France, according to the International Red Cross, had enslaved nearly three-quarters of a million former German servicemen. Of these 475,000 had been captured by the Americans, who, “in a deal,” had transferred them to French control for the expressed purpose of forced labor. Interestingly (in a macabre way), the French returned 2,474 German POWs, complaining that they were weaklings.5

Those returned must indeed have been in a bad way for the 472,526 remaininged slaves had already been described by correspondents as; “a beggar army of pale, thin men clad in vermin-infested tatters.” All were pronounced unfit for work, three-quarters of them due to deliberate starvation. Of this unfortunate “army” of slaves, 19 percent were so badly treated they needed to be hospitalized.6

In the notorious camp in the Sarthe District for 20,000 prisoners, inmates received just 900 calories a day; thus 12 died every day in the hospital. Four to five thousand were unable to work anymore.

Recently trains with new prisoners arrived at the camp; several prisoners had died during the trip, several others had tried to stay alive by eating coal that had been lying in the freight train by which they came.7

On December 5, 1946, the U.S. government requested the repatriation (by October 1, 1947) to Germany of the 674,000 German POWs it had handed over to France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg.

France agreed, in principle, but refused to abide by the release date stipulated. The French pointed out, correctly, that a December 1, 1945 memorandum clearly stated that German prisoners handed over to the French by the U.S. government “were chattels to be used indefinitely as forced labor.”8

The German armed forces invariably obeyed the Rules of War conventions to the letter. Speaking for himself and other Allied military commanders, Maj. Gen. Robert W. Grow, U.S. Army Commander, 6th Armored Division in Europe, conceded there were no knon German atrocities against the Allies:

My service during World War II was in command of an armored division throughout the European campaign, from Normandy to Saxony. My division lost quite a number of officers and men captured between July 1944 and April 1945. In no instance did I hear of personnel from our division receiving treatment other than proper under the “Rules of Land Warfare.” As far as the 6th Armored Division was concerned in its 280 days of front-line contact, there was no “atrocity problem.” Frankly, I was aghast, as were many of my contemporaries, when we learned of the proposed “war crimes” trials and the fact that military commanders were among the accused. I know of no general officer who approved of them.9

Despite the German observance of convention the American forces response was often as summary and as brutal as those practiced by their Soviet allies. Only in cases where large numbers of captured soldiers had been taken were they to be enslaved. If captured in smaller groups the U.S. Army policy was simply to slaughter their captured prisoners where they stood.

One such case was the cold-blooded slaying of an estimated 700 troops of the 8th SS Mountain Division. These troops who had fought with honorable distinction had earlier captured a U.S. field hospital. Although the German troops had conducted themselves properly, they were, when subsequently captured by the U.S. Army, routinely separated and gunned down in groups by squads of American troops.

A similar fate befell infantrymen of the SS Westphalia Brigade, who were captured by the U.S. 3rd Armored Division. Most of the German captives were shot in the back of the head. The jubilant Americans told the locals to leave their bodies in the streets as a warning to others of U.S. revenge. Their corpses lay in the streets for five days before the occupying forces relented and allowed the corpses to be buried. After the war the German authorities attempted, without success, to prosecute the GIs responsible.10 Ironically, in the light of postwar research, it has been revealed that the only atrocities committed at Dachau were those carried out by the victorious Allies. Equally ironically this camp was an Allied concentration camp for a longer period of time (11 years) than it was a German administered camp. There, 300 SS camp guards were quickly “neutralized,” on the orders of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. The term “neutralized,” of course, is a politically correct way of saying POWs were rounded up and machine-gunned in groups. Accounts of the mass murder of POWs at Dachau have been described in at least two books; The Day of the Americans by Nerin Gun, Fleet Publishing Company, New York, and, Deliverance Day—The Last Hours at Dachau by Michael Selzer, Lippincot, Philadelphia.

These books describe how German prisoners were collected in groups, placed against a wall and methodically machine-gunned by American soldiers while some were still standing, hands raised in surrender. American soldiers casually climbed over the twitching bodies, killing the wounded. While this was happening, American photographers were taking pictures of the massacres, which have since been published.

At Dachau, which was in the American zone of Germany, a shock force of American and Polish guards attempted to entrain a group of Russian prisoners from Vlasov’s army, who had refused to be repatriated under the new American ruling.

“All of these men refused to entrain,” Robert Murphy wrote in his report of the incident. “They begged to be shot. They resisted entrainment by taking off their clothes and refusing to leave their quarters. . . . Tear gas forced them out of the building into the snow, where those who had cut and stabbed themselves fell exhausted and bleeding in the snow. Nine men hanged themselves and one had stabbed himself to death and one other who had stabbed himself subsequently died, while 20 others are still in hospital from self-inflicted wounds. The entrainment was finally effected of 368 men.11

The last operation of this kind in Germany took place at Plattling near Regensburg, where 1,500 men of Vlasov’s army had been interned by the Americans. In the early hours of February 24, 1946 they were driven out of their huts, wearing only their nightclothes, and handed over to the Russians [Soviets—Ed.] in the forest near the Bavarian-Czech border. Before the train set off on its return journey, the American guards were horrified to see the bodies of Vlasov’s men who had already committed suicide hanging in rows from trees. And when they returned to Plattling even the German SS prisoners in the nearby POW camp jeered at them for what they had done.

According to The Toronto Daily Star, March 9, 1968, “Former members of an illegal Israeli force which was given absolute freedom to slaughter Germans conceded that, “More than 1,000 Nazi SS officers died as a result of eating arsenic-impregnated bread introduced April 13, 1946, in an American-run POW camp near Nuremberg.”

After the U.S. victory at the Battle for Remagen Bridge, Germans in the Rhineland surrendered en masse. Between April and July 1945, some 260,000 German POWs were held under American guard in the boggy fields between Remagen and Sinzig. They were kept in the open air, and their daily ration was one potato, a biscuit, a spoonful of vegetables and some water. Wracked by disease, at least 1,200 died, according to German records.”12

In the United States, where 140,000 German POWs were shipped, the Catholic Bishops Conference described how:

Multitudes of civilians and prisoners of war have been deported and degraded into forced labor unworthy of human beings. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are put like slaves to forced labor, although the only thing with which they can be reproached is the fact that they were soldiers. Many of these poor fellows are without news from home and have not been allowed to send a sign of life to their dear ones.

United States, Britain and France, nearly a year after peace are violating International Red Cross agreements they solemnly signed in 1929. Although thousands of former German soldiers are being used in the hazardous work of clearing minefields, sweeping sea mines and razing shattered buildings, the Geneva Convention expressly forbids employing prisoners in any dangerous labor or ni the transport of any material used in warfare

Henry Wales, in Geneva, Switzerland, on April 13, 1946, added:

The bartering of captured enemy soldiers by the victors throws the world back to the dark ages when feudal barons raided adjoining duchies to replenish their human livestock. It is an iniquitous system and an evil precedent, because it is wide open for abuse, with difficulty in establishing responsibility. It is manifestly as unjust to sell them for political reasons as the [sale of] African Negroes a century ago.

By contrast, the German armed forces behaved impeccably toward their POWs. “The most amazing thing about the atroci ties in this war [on the German side] is that there have been so few of them. I have come up against few instances where the Germans have not treated prisoners according to the rules, and respected the Red Cross,” reported The Progressive, a respected newspaper, on February 4, 1945.

Allan Wood, London correspondent for The London Express, agreed: “The Germans even in their greatest moments of despair obeyed the Convention in most respects. True it is that there were front-line atrocities—passions run high up there—but they were incidents, not practices, and misadministration of their American prison camps was very uncommon.” Lt. Newton L. Marguiles echoed his words: “It is true the Reich exacted forced labor from foreign workers, but it is also true that they were, for the most part, paid and fed well.”

“I think some of the persons found themselves better off than at any time in their lives before,” said Dr. James K. Pollack, Allied Military Government (AMG).

Said Max H. Forester, chief of AMG’s Coal and Mining Division in July 1946: “What did the Germans do to get efficient production from forced labor that we were not able to do with Germans working down the mines? They fed their help, and fed them well.”

Asked what were the chances of the evil perpetrators of such crimes being brought to justice, Walsh said the only thing that stood between the Allied sadists and the hangman’s rope was the will to bring them to trial. Unfortunately, war crimes justice is selective and so far applicable only to the defeated foe.

Said Walsh: “What is needed is to raise public awareness and a lead be given by those in public life whose voice is less likely to be censored.” He added that the interests of justice must come before national pride and political expediency. “How else,” he added, “can human civilization progress than through the administration of justice that is blind to race, political dogma and national interests?”

Vivian Bird is a British historian, author and journalist who has written extensively about hidden aspects of the history. He also edited Auschwitz: The Final Count from TBR. He currently resides in Devonshire.